welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Robert Craig Spickard
Robert Craig Spickard
Robert Craig Spickard
Visitors: 56
0
Bar #721751(FL)     License for 20 years
Aventura FL

Are you Robert Craig Spickard? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 120.52, 120.536, 120.54, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.595, 120.68, 154.504, 186.901, 20.60, 320.011, 320.02, 320.03, 320.27, 320.60, 320.61, 320.64, 320.641, 320.642, 320.645, 320.699, 320.70, 561.20, 608.4431

17-003894RX  FLORIDA AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 11, 2017
Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 15C-16.012(5)1/ (the “Rule”) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Petitioner demonstrated that existing rule 15C-16.012(5) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
15-002334  ACTION NISSAN, INC., D/B/A UNIVERSAL HYUNDAI vs HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA AND HYUNDAI OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, LLC, D/B/A HYUNDAI OF CENTRAL FLORIDA  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 23, 2015
At issue in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner, Action Nissan, Inc., d/b/a Universal Hyundai ("Universal"), has standing to protest the establishment of Hyundai of Central Florida, LLC, d/b/a Hyundai of Central Florida ("HCF"), as an additional dealership of Hyundai Motor America (“HMA”) in Clermont (Lake County), Florida, as described in the notice published in the Florida Administrative Register of March 26, 2015 (vol. 41, no. 6, p. 1480-81).Petitioner failed to establish standing to protest proposed additional Hyundai dealer in Clermont; Department's method of determining county population satisfies statutory criteria.
11-001157  HAMPTON AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., D/B/A HAMPTON NISSAN vs NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 07, 2011
Whether the intended termination under that Notice of Termination of the Dealer Sales and Service Agreement, dated December 7, 2010, between Respondent Nissan North America, Inc., and Petitioner Hampton Automotive Group, Inc., d/b/a Hampton Nissan, is unfair or prohibited within the meaning of section 320.641, Florida Statutes.The proposed termination of the dealer agreement meets statutory requirements and is not unfair.
10-001968  CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC vs JERRY ULM DODGE, INC., D/B/A JERRY ULM DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP AND FERMAN ON 54, INC., D/B/A FERMAN CHRYSLER DODGE AT CYPRESS CREEK  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 14, 2010
The issue is whether Petitioner's establishment of North Tampa Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc. (North Tampa), as a successor motor vehicle dealer for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge line-makes (vehicles) in Tampa, Florida, is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3), Florida Statutes (2009),1 pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a).Reopening of dealership within 12 months after termination of franchise agreement, but more than 12 months after dealer license lapsed, is exempt under Subsection 320.642(5) from protest requirements because bankruptcy tolled the 12-month period.
10-001969  CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC vs JERRY ULM DODGE, INC., D/B/A JERRY ULM DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP AND FERMAN ON 54, INC., D/B/A FERMAN CHRYSLER DODGE AT CYPRESS CREEK  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 14, 2010
The issue is whether Petitioner's establishment of North Tampa Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc. (North Tampa), as a successor motor vehicle dealer for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge line-makes (vehicles) in Tampa, Florida, is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3), Florida Statutes (2009),1 pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a).Reopening of dealership within 12 months after termination of franchise agreement, but more than 12 months after dealer license lapsed, is exempt under Subsection 320.642(5) from protest requirements because bankruptcy tolled the 12-month period.
10-001970  CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC vs JERRY ULM DODGE, INC., D/B/A JERRY ULM DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP AND FERMAN ON 54, INC., D/B/A FERMAN CHRYSLER DODGE AT CYPRESS CREEK  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 14, 2010
The issue is whether Petitioner's establishment of North Tampa Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc. (North Tampa), as a successor motor vehicle dealer for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge line-makes (vehicles) in Tampa, Florida, is exempt from the notice and protest requirements in Subsection 320.642(3), Florida Statutes (2009),1 pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a).Reopening of dealership within 12 months after termination of franchise agreement, but more than 12 months after dealer license lapsed, is exempt under Subsection 320.642(5) from protest requirements because bankruptcy tolled the 12-month period.
11-003649  RIDE GREEN FLORIDA, LLC vs PUMA CYCLES CORPORATION AND WILD HOGS SCOOTERS AND MOTORSPORTS, LLC  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 22, 2011
The issue in these cases is whether two applications for new point franchise motor vehicle dealerships filed by Puma Cycles Corporation and Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC (Respondents), should be approved.Evidence fails to establish that existing dealer is not providing adequate representation of line-make.
11-004337  RIDE GREEN FLORIDA, LLC vs PUMA CYCLES CORPORATION AND WILD HOGS SCOOTERS AND MOTORSPORTS, LLC  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 23, 2011
The issue in these cases is whether two applications for new point franchise motor vehicle dealerships filed by Puma Cycles Corporation and Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC (Respondents), should be approved.Evidence fails to establish that existing dealer is not providing adequate representation of line-make.
11-003389  FERMAN MOTOR CAR COMPANY, INC., D/B/A FERMAN CHEVROLET AND GORDON STEWART CHEVROLET, INC., D/B/A GORDON CHEVROLET vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC AND DANIELS CHEVROLET, INC., D/B/A DANIELS CHEVROLET  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 13, 2011
Whether Daniels Chevrolet, Inc., is a successor dealer within the meaning of section 320.642, Florida Statutes (2010),1/ and whether Daniels Chevrolet, Inc., and General Motors, LLC, are in compliance with the requirements of section 320.645.Respondent Daniels Chevrolet is a successor dealer within the meaning of s. 320.642, and Petitioners lack standing to challenge whether Respondents are in compliance with s. 320.645.

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