Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Stephen Tabano
Stephen Tabano
Visitors: 42
0
Bar #309133(FL)     License for 44 years
Tampa FL

Are you Stephen Tabano? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

5D07-1386  Moses v. State  (2007)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Oct. 02, 2007 Citations: 965 So. 2d 1156
965 So. 2d 1156 (2007) MOSES v. STATE. No. 5D07-1386. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. October 2, 2007. Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
10-009282  GERALD J. CAREY, II vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 23, 2010
Whether Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in relocating and reestablishment of his small business pursuant to section 421.55, Florida Statutes (2009),1/ as implemented by Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-66.007, which, in turn, incorporates by reference the provisions of 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 24, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally-Assisted Programs (effective October 1, 2006),2/ and the Florida Department of Transportation Right of Way Manual 9.3.15, and, if Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement, the amount owed to him.Facts show that Petitioner "flipped a house" rather than reestablish his rental property business. Recommend that DOT affirm denial of Petitioner's reestablishment expenses.
08-002778  PROCTER PRODUCTIONS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 12, 2008
The issue is whether Respondent should deny Petitioner's application for a sign permit, because the proposed site is not zoned commercial and, therefore, fails the requirement for commercial zoning in Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and the location does not qualify as an un-zoned commercial/industrial area within the meaning of Subsection 479.01(23).Respondent should grant a permit for the sign to be located on property that is commercial-zoned within the meaning of Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes.
89-006871BID  STATE PAVING CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (1989)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 15, 1989
The issue for determination at the formal hearing was whether Respondent should be required to provide funds to Petitioner and Intervenor for their respective technical and price proposals in accordance with former Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-91.006(5)(hereinafter "Rule 14-91.006(5)").DOT should reject all Request For Propsals. DOT may not refuse to apply its own valid written rule. Refusal is invalid unwritten rule which can be challenged in 120.57 hearing without 120.56

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