Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Terrell Kelly Arline
Terrell Kelly Arline
Visitors: 29
1
Bar #306584(FL)     License for 44 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Terrell Kelly Arline? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

18-004773GM  PALM BEACH COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF PALM BEACH vs CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 12, 2018
The issues to be determined in this consolidated proceeding are (1) whether the Petitioners have demonstrated standing under section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2018), and (2) whether the Okeechobee Business District Comprehensive Plan Amendment (OBD Amendment) adopted on August 13, 2018, by the Respondent by Ordinance No. 4783-18 (Ordinance) is "in compliance" under section 163.3184(1)(b).The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the City of West Palm Beach's comprehensive plan amendment creating the Okeechobee Business District in the Downtown Master Plan Element was not "in compliance," under section 163.3184.
17-003871GM  BG MINE, LLC vs CITY OF BONITA SPRINGS  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 07, 2017
Whether amendments to the City of Bonita Springs Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 17-08 (Ordinance) on June 7, 2017, are "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2017).1/The City of Bonita Springs determination that Ordinance 17-08 is in compliance under section 163.3184 is fairly debatable. The Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance.
14-002801RP  FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, ALACHUA COUNTY, BAY COUNTY, BREVARD COUNTY, CHARLOTTE COUNTY, COLLIER COUNTY, ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLAGLER COUNTY, HERNANDO COUNTY, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, LAKE COUNTY, LEE COUNTY, LEON COUNTY, MANATEE COUNTY, ET AL. vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 2014
This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to the Proposed Rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department” or “DJJ”) 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 (the “Proposed Rules”). The main issue in this case is whether the Proposed Rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that the Proposed Rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, section 985.686, Florida Statutes; are vague; and/or are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also argue that the Proposed Rules impose regulatory costs that could be addressed by the adoption of a less costly alternative. Finally, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules apply an invalid interpretation of the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2014-15 by interpreting the GAA as a modification to substantive law, contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida.Some, but not all, of the challenged provisions of the Department of Juvenile Justice's proposed rules governing cost sharing between state and counties for secure juvenile detention are invalid.
12-000891RX  OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND NASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2012)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 12, 2012
This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to existing Florida Administrative Code rules 63G-1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017, (the "Challenged Rules"), adopted by the Department of Juvenile Justice (Department). At issue is whether some or all of the challenged rules constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined by section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. The challengers allege the rules are invalid on three grounds: The rules modify the dividing line between county and state responsibility for the costs of secure juvenile detention from "final court disposition" to "commitment"; The rules fail to implement the requirement that the counties are only responsible for the "actual costs" of secure juvenile detention for the period of time prior to final court disposition; The rules inappropriately utilize an appropriations bill to modify the amount Petitioners are required to pay for predisposition costs under section 985.686, Florida Statutes.Department of Juvenile Justice's rules governing cost sharing between state and counties for secure juvenile detention are invalid.
10-003166  BROWARD COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 10, 2010
The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") assessed Petitioners and Intervenor counties for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 in a manner consistent with the provisions of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009.1/Department of Juvenile Justice improperly calculated counties' contributions to Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund for fiscal year 2008-2009.
10-001893  MIAMI-DADE COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 12, 2010
The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") assessed Petitioners and Intervenor counties for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 in a manner consistent with the provisions of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009.1/Department of Juvenile Justice improperly calculated counties' contributions to Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund for fiscal year 2008-2009.
10-001894  SANTA ROSA COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 12, 2010
The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") assessed Petitioners and Intervenor counties for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 in a manner consistent with the provisions of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009.1/Department of Juvenile Justice improperly calculated counties' contributions to Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund for fiscal year 2008-2009.
10-001895  ALACHUA COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 12, 2010
The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") assessed Petitioners and Intervenor counties for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 in a manner consistent with the provisions of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009.1/Department of Juvenile Justice improperly calculated counties' contributions to Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund for fiscal year 2008-2009.
10-001896  ORANGE COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 12, 2010
The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") assessed Petitioners and Intervenor counties for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 in a manner consistent with the provisions of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009.1/Department of Juvenile Justice improperly calculated counties' contributions to Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund for fiscal year 2008-2009.
10-001945  PINELLAS COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 13, 2010
The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") assessed Petitioners and Intervenor counties for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 in a manner consistent with the provisions of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009.1/Department of Juvenile Justice improperly calculated counties' contributions to Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund for fiscal year 2008-2009.

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