welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  7. Richard Anthony Harrison
Richard Anthony Harrison
Richard Anthony Harrison
Visitors: 25
0
Bar #602493(FL)     License for 38 years
Tampa FL

Are you Richard Anthony Harrison? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

9:07-bk-08397-ALP  In Re Hydratech Utilities, Inc.  (2008)
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: May 08, 2008 Citations: 391 B.R. 473
391 B.R. 473 (2008) In re HYDRATECH UTILITIES, INC., Debtor. No. 9:07-bk-08397-ALP. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division. May 8, 2008. *474 Alberto F. Gomez, Jr., Morse & Gomez, PA, Tampa, FL, for Debtors. ORDER ON T. KEATHLEY'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. No. 53) ALEXANDER L. PASKAY, Bankruptcy Judge. On September 13, 2007, Hydratech Utilities, Inc. (the Debtor) filed its voluntary Petition for Relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (Code). The Debtor has no em..
99-003398BID  ENPOWER, INC., FOR ITSELF AND FOR FLORIDA SEAWATER DESALINATION COMPANY (NOT INC.) vs TAMPA BAY WATER, A REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 10, 1999
This is a procurement protest. The ultimate issue is whether the Respondent’s award of the "Agreement for the Construction and Operation of a Seawater Desalination Plant and Water Purchase Agreement" ("WPA") to Intervenor, S & W Water, LLC ("S&W") on July 19, 1999, is contrary to Tampa Bay Water's (TBW’s) governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the proposal specifications, or is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Additional issues presented for decision are: (1) whether Petitioner has standing to maintain this protest; and (2) whether, by participating in the procurement process, Petitioner has waived or is estopped from claiming irregularities arising out of that process.Water Supply Authority procurement for Design-Build-Own-Operate-Transfer desalination plant. Chapter 287 does not apply. Procurement met standards of 120.57(3)(f); not arbitrary, capricious, contrary to competition, or clearly erroneous.
01-000947BID  UNIVERSAL PRECISION INDUSTRIES, INC. vs TAMPA BAY WATER, A REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY  (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 07, 2001
The issue is whether Tampa Bay Water's award of a contract to Commerce Controls, Inc. to furnish control panel fabrications for a regional water treatment plant under Contract No. 2001-22 was contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, as alleged by Petitioner.Failure to supply certain documents with bid proposed wad minor irregularity that could be waived by agency.
98-004925  ALAFIA RIVER BASIN STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL, INC. vs TAMPA BAY WATER AND SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT  (1998)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 04, 1998
The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the "District"), should issue Water Use Permit ("WUP") No. 2011794.00 to the Respondent, Tampa Bay Water, pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Agency Action and Draft Water Use Permit issued on September 30, 1998.Applicant, Tampa Bay Water, provided reasonable assurances that its proposed Alafia River withdrawal project meets conditions set forth in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Rule 40D-2.301, Florida Administrative Code.
94-001790RP  AIRPORT LIMOUSINE SERVICE OF ORLANDO, INC., AND YELLOW CAB OF ORLANDO, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (1994)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 06, 1994
The issue in this case is whether proposed amendments to Rule 12A-1.070 are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners and Intervenors challenge Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(1) and (4)(a) and (b). Respondent published the amendments in the Florida Administrative Law Weekly on March 18, 1994 and June 10, 1994. As described in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the proposed rule amendments address, among other things, the taxation of payments to airport authorities from concessionaires like rental car companies and airport restaurants. The law imposes a sales tax on payments for the use or occupancy of real property, whether the agreement consists of a lease or a license to use real property. The main dispute in these cases is whether the proposed rule amendments illegally extend the sales tax to payments for intangibles like a concession, franchise, or privilege to do business.Proposed rule invalidly extended sales tax to non-rent payments for concessions.

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