Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Ted K. Brown
Ted K. Brown
Visitors: 69
1
Bar #933651(FL)     License for 21 years
Jacksonville FL

Are you Ted K. Brown? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

09-002080GM  RICHARD A. BURGESS vs DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND CITY OF EDGEWATER  (2009)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 20, 2009
The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the City of Edgewater’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O-10, and revised in part by the remedial amendments in Ordinance Number 2010-O-01 (“Plan Amendments”), are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009).1/Petitioner failed to prove that the comprehensive amendments adopted by the City of Edgewater were not in compliance based on lack of need, formatting errors, multiple planning horizons, and other claimed inconsistencies.
89-004098  EDWARD K. FEWOX, JR. vs CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD  (1989)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 31, 1989
May Petitioner be granted credit for Questions 11, 12, and 18 on his February 1989 Certified General Contractor Examination so as to be considered to have successfully passed the examination?Applicant did not demonstrate that contractor exam was wrong not to allow him credit for 3 challenged questions; no arbitrary and capricious agency action
87-004412  EDWIN K. MIDDLESWART vs. BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS  (1987)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: May 11, 1988
Should Petitioner be deemed to have passed the Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Exam?Petitioner awarded passing grade on examination because the grader did not follow Item Specific Scoring Plan guidelines and therefore acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
85-000537  FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION vs. EDWARD K. GARVEY AND EDWARD K. GARVEY, INC.  (1985)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Jul. 18, 1985
There was no evidence of intent to defraud. Respondent misled to believe that he was acting on custom and usage. Reprimand and fine for retaining unauthorized commission.

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