welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Thomas Frederick Mullin
Thomas Frederick Mullin
Thomas Frederick Mullin
Visitors: 27
0
Bar #858331(FL)     License for 20 years; Member in Good Standing
Boca Raton FL

Are you Thomas Frederick Mullin? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

16-001861  CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH vs PALM BEACH COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 01, 2016
The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Respondents, Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”) and Palm Beach County (also referred to as “the Applicants”), are entitled to the issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) to construct an extension of State Road 7 (“SR 7”) and its associated surface water management system in Palm Beach County.Petitioner failed to prove that the applicants were not entitled to the environmental resource permit to build the SR 7 extension and associated surface water management system.
17-004081  SOUTHPORT RANCH, LLC vs D.R. HORTON, INC., OSCEOLA COUNTY, AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 18, 2017
The issues in this case are: 1) whether the Petitioner, Southport Ranch, LLC (Petitioner), is a substantially affected person with standing to challenge the Respondent, South Florida Water Management District’s (District) intent to issue Environmental Resource Permit (Mitigation Banking) Number 49-00007-M to the Respondents, D.R. Horton, Inc., and Osceola County (Applicants); and 2) the number of potential mitigation bank credits that the District should award to the Applicants.Petitioner did not carry its burden of proving that Respondents were not entitled to the proposed amount of mitigation credits. Respondents carried their burden of showing entitlement to the requested mitigation bank permit.
14-004860F  WILLIAM GUERRERO AND CHRISTINA BANG, A/K/A CHRISTINA GUERRERO vs BERNARD SPINRAD AND MARIEN SPINRAD  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 17, 2014
The issue to be determined is whether Petitioners, William Guererro and Christina Bang, a/k/a Christina Guerrero, are entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, from Respondents, Bernard Spinrad and Marien Spinrad, related to litigation between the parties in DOAH Case No. 13- 2254.Petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes.
12-001056  CHARLES AND KIMBERLY JACOBS AND SOLAR SPORTSYSTEMS, INC. vs FAR NIENTE II, LLC, POLO FIELD ONE, LLC, AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT  (2012)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
The issue to be determined is whether the applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are entitled to issuance of a permit by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District) for the modification of a surface-water management system to serve the 24.1-acre World Dressage Complex in Wellington, Florida.Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the stormwater management system will comply with the established standards, thus the permit should be issued.
11-002816BID  DYNAMIC SOLUTIONS, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs TAMPA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM, AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 06, 2011
The issues in this case, a bid protest, are as follows: 1. Whether Respondent, Tampa Bay Estuary Program, an independent special district ("TBEP"), failed to follow the review process as outlined in the Request for Proposals ("RFP") and TBEP's own procurement policies. 2. Whether TBEP failed to properly apply the scoring and review criteria set forth in the RFP. 3. Whether the RFP instructions were followed, whether they lacked certain direction or standards, and whether these failures led to actions that were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. 4. Whether the evaluation committee members acted arbitrarily in scoring, ranking, or making recommendations to the Management Board.Petitioner did not prove that bid process was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.

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