Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Pedro Gassant
Pedro Gassant
Visitors: 25
0
Bar #99771(FL)     License for 12 years
Miami FL

Are you Pedro Gassant? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 120.569120.57120.68163.3167163.3177163.3184163.3187286.011286.0113287.057287.1535.22552.32552.34552.36552.4057.10595.11

Florida Administrative Code: 28-106.21428-106.217

4D13-3692 and 4D13-4457  Tabarius Arline v. State  (2014)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Aug. 06, 2014
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014 TABARIUS ARLINE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. Nos. 4D13-3692 and 4D13-4457 [August 6, 2014] Consolidated appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Marc Gold, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 12010604CF10A and 12014039CF10A. Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. No appearance filed for appellee. PER CURIAM..
16-005719F  WHITE ROCK QUARRIES vs DOROTHY BROWN-ALFARO AND AMILCAR ALFARO  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 30, 2016
Whether Petitioner, White Rock Quarries (“White Rock”), is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees to be paid by Respondents, Dorothy Brown-Alfaro and Amilcar Alfaro (“Respondents” or “Ms. Alfaro”), pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and an award of attorney’s fees and taxable costs to be paid by Respondents pursuant to section 552.40(9), Florida Statutes; and, if so, the amount of attorney’s fees and taxable costs to which White Rock is entitled.Petitioner is not entitled to attorneys' fees under sections 57.105 and 552.40, Fla. Stat. Competent, substantial evidence supported Respondents' claims. Petitioner is entitled to costs under section 552.40, totaling $9,287.00.
15-006014CM  DOROTHY BROWN-ALFARO AND AMILCAR ALFARO vs WHITE ROCK QUARRIES  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 23, 2015
Whether Respondent’s use of explosives in connection with construction materials mining activities caused damages to Petitioners’ home, and, if so, the amount of damages to which Petitioners are entitled.Petitioners failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent's use of explosives in connection with construction materials mining activities caused damages to Petitioners' home.
15-003834GM  TANIA GARCIA, PEDRO ROMERO, AND MIGUEL A. GONZALEZ vs CITY OF HIALEAH  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 06, 2015
Whether the amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the City of Hialeah Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 2015-34 on June 9, 2015, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).1/Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM amendment was internally inconsistent with the City's plan or not supported by data and analysis regarding the suitability of the property or the availability of sewer service.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer