welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Richard Edward Shine
Richard Edward Shine
Richard Edward Shine
Visitors: 81
0
Bar #692311(FL)     License for 22 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Richard Edward Shine? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

19-005716  J. GLENN WRIGHT TRUST vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 29, 2019
Whether Respondent’s proposed modifications to Petitioner’s driveway connections provide the public with reasonable access to or from the State Highway System.The Department's proposed modifications to Petitioner's driveway connections will provide the public with reasonable access to or from the State Highway System.
18-000279F  MICHAEL BOXBERGER AND KELLI BOXBERGER, D/B/A "THE FUNKY FIDDLER" vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 16, 2018
The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ Petitioners are entitled to such an award if: Petitioners were the prevailing parties in a previous administrative proceeding initiated by the Department of Transportation (“the Department”); (b) the Department’s actions were not substantially justified; and (c) no special circumstances exist that would make an award of fees and costs unjust.Petitioners failed to satisfy the requirements for an award of fees and cost pursuant to section 57.111.
18-000280F  COASTAL RESTAURANT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 16, 2018
The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ Petitioners are entitled to such an award if: Petitioners were the prevailing parties in a previous administrative proceeding initiated by the Department of Transportation (“the Department”); (b) the Department’s actions were not substantially justified; and (c) no special circumstances exist that would make an award of fees and costs unjust.Petitioners failed to satisfy the requirements for an award of fees and cost pursuant to section 57.111.
18-000281F  CRUM'S SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 16, 2018
The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ Petitioners are entitled to such an award if: Petitioners were the prevailing parties in a previous administrative proceeding initiated by the Department of Transportation (“the Department”); (b) the Department’s actions were not substantially justified; and (c) no special circumstances exist that would make an award of fees and costs unjust.Petitioners failed to satisfy the requirements for an award of fees and cost pursuant to section 57.111.
18-004208BID  PTV AMERICA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 10, 2018
Whether the Florida Department of Transportation’s (“Respondent” or “Department”) intended award of a contract for integrated corridor management modeling software to Aimsun, Inc. (“Intervenor” or “Aimsun”), is contrary to the Department’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether the decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner did not prove that the Department's intended award of the contract for software to the Intervenor was contrary to competition, contrary to the RFP specifications, or arbitrary.
17-000815  JOE DAVID RIGGINS AND BARBARA JEAN RIGGINS vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 07, 2017
Is it necessary for Respondent, the Department of Transportation (Department), to close two driveways on the property of Petitioners, Joe David and Barbara Jean Riggins? If the driveways are closed, will the property affected by the driveway closings still have reasonable access to the State Highway System?DOT proved that closing two of three driveways for two lots on State Road 441 would reduce safety risks and improve traffic flow while leaving reasonable access to the property.
17-000947  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs ANN W. COMBEE  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 13, 2017
The issues are (1) whether a driveway connection on Respondent's property in Auburndale, Florida, is subject to closure because it poses safety concerns, and (2) whether a second driveway connection on Respondent's property should be modified because it fails to meet current access management standards.Department of Transportation established that two nonconforming driveways on Respondent's property should be closed and/or modified.
16-000769BID  CYRIACKS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 12, 2016
The issues in these consolidated cases are: (1) whether the decision by Respondent, Department of Transportation, to reject all bids for the contract at issue was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent; and (2) if so, whether Respondent's actions in cancelling the notice of intent to award the contract at issue to Cyriacks Environmental Consulting Services, Inc., ("CECOS") and requiring the submittal of new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.2/Agency's rejection of all bids was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest or fraudulent. Agency's actions in cancelling contract award and requiring vendors to submit new proposals was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
16-003530BID  CYRIACKS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 22, 2016
The issues in these consolidated cases are: (1) whether the decision by Respondent, Department of Transportation, to reject all bids for the contract at issue was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent; and (2) if so, whether Respondent's actions in cancelling the notice of intent to award the contract at issue to Cyriacks Environmental Consulting Services, Inc., ("CECOS") and requiring the submittal of new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.2/Agency's rejection of all bids was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest or fraudulent. Agency's actions in cancelling contract award and requiring vendors to submit new proposals was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
16-002843  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs ZFI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION, INC.  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 23, 2016
The issue is whether Respondent's construction activities violated Department standards and created an unsafe road condition, as alleged in the Department's Amended Violation and Notice to Show Cause - Non-Compliance with Permit Conditions (Notice to Show Cause) issued on March 1, 2016.The Department of Transportation established that Respondent violated Department rules and created an unsafe road condition on a road widening project in Polk County.

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