welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Sarah Harriet Bohr
Sarah Harriet Bohr
Sarah Harriet Bohr
Visitors: 20
1
Bar #264008(FL)     License for 46 years; Member in Good Standing
Atlantic Beach FL

Are you Sarah Harriet Bohr? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Bankruptcy No. 91-12247-8P7, Adv. No. 91-860  In Re Dirsmith  (1993)
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Mar. 15, 1993 Citations: 152 B.R. 341
152 B.R. 341 (1993) In re Susan T. DIRSMITH, Debtor. Terry B. SMITH, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Susan T. DIRSMITH, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 91-12247-8P7, Adv. No. 91-860. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. March 15, 1993. *342 Jary C. Nixon, Tampa, FL, for plaintiff. Lee Ellen Acevedo, Port Richey, FL, for defendant. *343 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MEMORANDUM OPINION ALEXANDER L. PASKAY, Chief Judge. THIS IS a Chapter 7 liquidation case and the matter under c..
SC00-2044  Amendment to Rules of Juvenile Proc. 8.350  (2003)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Mar. 06, 2003 Citations: 842 So. 2d 763
842 So. 2d 763 (2003) AMENDMENT TO THE RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE, FLA. R. JUV. P. 8.350. No. SC00-2044. Supreme Court of Florida. March 6, 2003. The Honorable Joel M. Silvershein, Chair, Juvenile Court Rules Committee, Fort Lauderdale, FL; the Honorable John M. Alexander, Former Chair, Juvenile Court Rules Committee, St. Augustine, FL, and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL; the Honorable Sandy E. Karlan, Circuit Judge, Chair for the Florida Bar Commissi..
Bankruptcy No. 98-18666-8G7. Adversary No. 98-721  In Re Hendricks  (2000)
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Jan. 10, 2000 Citations: 248 B.R. 652
248 B.R. 652 (2000) In re James Randolph HENDRICKS, Debtor. Jack D. Hoogewind, Plaintiff, v. James Randolph Hendricks, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 98-18666-8G7. Adversary No. 98-721. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. January 10, 2000. *653 James Randolph Hendricks, Lutz, FL, Jamie K. Proctor, Jamie K. Proctor, P.A. Tampa, FL, for Debtor. Jack Hoogewind, Dade City, FL, for Movant. Buddy Ford, Tampa, FL, for Defendant. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND MEMORANDUM O..
9:04-BK-14841-ALP  In Re MacFarlane  (2005)
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Apr. 15, 2005 Citations: 325 B.R. 908
325 B.R. 908 (2005) In re Dennis MACFARLANE, Debtor. No. 9:04-BK-14841-ALP. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division. April 15, 2005. *909 Edward R. Miller, Miller and Hollander, Naples, FL, for Debtor. ORDER ON TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO DEBTOR'S AMEN DED CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (Doc. No. 16) ALEXANDER L. PASKAY, Bankruptcy Judge. THE MATTER under consideration in this Chapter 7 case of Dennis MacFarlane (Debtor) is Trustee's Objection to Debtor's Amended Claim of Exemption filed..
SC00-2044  Amendment to Rules of Juvenile Proc. 8.350  (2001)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Oct. 25, 2001 Citations: 804 So. 2d 1206
804 So. 2d 1206 (2001) AMENDMENT TO THE RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE, FLA. R. JUV. P. 8.350. No. SC00-2044. Supreme Court of Florida. October 25, 2001. Honorable John M. Alexander, Chair, Juvenile Court Rules Committee, St. Augustine, FL, and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL; Teresa A. Kramer, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee, FL; and Deborah Anne Schroth, Florida Legal Services, Inc., the Minority Report of the ..
85-003904RP  GERALINE LAVERNE AUSTIN vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES  (1985)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Mar. 05, 1986
A final hearing in this case was held in Tallahassee, Florida on January 14 and 15, 1986, before Donald D. Conn, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented by: Petitioner: Sarah Bohr, Esquire Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc. 604 Hogan Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202Emergency rule is invalid because it does not prevent immediate danger to health, safety , and welfare of public. Challenge to proposed rule is denied because Petitioner did not show rule was arbitrary or capricious.

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