Elawyers Elawyers
R David Jackson
R David Jackson
Visitors: 74
0
Bar #185515(FL)     License for 26 years; Member in Good Standing
Sarasota FL

Are you R David Jackson? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

13-001219  SRQUS, LLC vs SARASOTA COUNTY, CITY OF LONGBOAT KEY, CITY OF SARASOTA, CITY OF VENICE, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 1, AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 08, 2013
The issue to be determined by this Order is whether the Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) on February 15, 2013, was timely1/ and, if not, whether the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling would serve to relieve Petitioner of the consequences of having failed to file a petition for hearing within the time allotted by applicable notice provisions.Petitioner's Request for Hearing was not timely filed, and the elements to support the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling were not proven.
10-007524  CHARLOTTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 15, 2011
The issues in this case are: Whether computer software purchases by the Charlotte County School District (District or Petitioner) in fiscal year 2008-09, paid for with capital outlay millage funds or interest earned on capital outlay millage funds, were authorized equipment purchases under the version of section 1011.71(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), existing at the time of the purchases;1 Whether interest earnings on capital outlay millage proceeds are subject to the same expenditure restrictions as the millage proceeds; and Whether the Department of Education's (Department or Respondent) position that the District violated the expenditure restrictions in section 1011.71(2) is impermissibly based on an unadopted rule. See § 120.57(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2010).Respondent did not meet its burden of proving Petitioner's 2008 computer software purchases violated expenditure restrictions in section 1011.71(2), but did prove such a violation as to a 2009 purchase made after the law changed.

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