welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Peter E Abraham
Peter E Abraham
Peter E Abraham
Visitors: 28
0
Bar #746370(FL)     License for 36 years; Member in Good Standing
Miami FL

Are you Peter E Abraham? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

90-2427  Braden v. State  (1991)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Mar. 05, 1991 Citations: 575 So. 2d 756
575 So. 2d 756 (1991) Michael D. BRADEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 90-2427. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. March 5, 1991. *757 Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, James T. Miller, Asst. Public Defender, Jacksonville, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Kathleen E. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. CAWTHON, Senior Judge. Appellant seeks reversal of an order for involuntary commitment. We reverse the order based on the insufficiency of ..
1091  New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Intercity Supply Corp.  (1968)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Jun. 13, 1968 Citations: 212 So. 2d 110
212 So. 2d 110 (1968) NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. INTERCITY SUPPLY CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, and Lealon Chambers, Appellees. No. 1091. District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District. June 13, 1968. Rehearing Denied July 16, 1968. *111 Eugene L. Roberts, of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, Sands & D'Aiuto, Rockledge, for appellant. William H. Roundtree, Cocoa, for appellee-Lealon Chambers. CROSS, Judge. The appellant, New Amsterdam Casualty Company, filed a complaint in..
3D05-1814  ANGELUS v. Pass  (2005)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Dec. 21, 2005 Citations: 917 So. 2d 199
917 So. 2d 199 (2005) ANGELUS v. PASS. No. 3D05-1814. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. December 21, 2005. Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
01-002663BID  R. N. EXPERTISE, INC. vs MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD  (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 05, 2001
The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making a preliminary decision to award a contract for drug screening services, Respondent acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, policy, or project specification; and, if so, whether such misstep(s) was/were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.Bid protester established that proposal submitted by putative successful proposer was materially non-responsive to Request for Proposals, and the evaluation of proposals was flawed. Recommend proposed award be rescinded.

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