welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. William Marshall Rowland, III
William Marshall Rowland, III
William Marshall Rowland, III
Visitors: 27
0
Bar #794708(FL)     License for 35 years
Orlando FL

Are you William Marshall Rowland, III? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

77-001745  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ART, INC.  (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Feb. 20, 1978
Outdoor sign owner failed to renew permit within 60 days. Department of Transportation denied late renewal. Sustained Department of Transportation`s refusal to repermit the sign.
76-000706  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. PETERSON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING  (1976)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Aug. 24, 1977
Whether the Department of Transportation should is sue a permit under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, for the subject outdoor advertising sign.Respondent "bought" sign which Petitioner owned and then tried to get a permit for it. Recommended Order: remove Petitioner's sign which is in violation of setback.
77-000141  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY  (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Aug. 24, 1977
Whether the Respondent has violated Section 479.02, Florida Statutes, and Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, for failure to display a visible permit tag and for a multiplicity of advertisers on one side of Board No. 0399B.Respondent`s sign with advertisements for different restaurants in association does not violate one ad rule. Recommend moving permit to where it can be seen.
75-001365  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. ANASTASIA ADVERTISING ART, INC.  (1975)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Feb. 11, 1977
Sign has no permit and is in violation of set-back and zoning laws. Remove the sign at once.
75-002090  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. OUTDOOR AD-ART, INC.  (1975)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Feb. 11, 1977
Whether the Respondent is in violation of Section 479.07(1), F.S., and Section 479.07(4), F.S., which require an application for a permit to be made and granted and the fees paid each year. Whether a sign which has been standing without a current permit is eligible for a current permit upon payment of the delinquent fees.Petitioner cannot arbitrarily change rules pertaining to sign permitting without following statutory procedures. Recommend issuing permits.
75-002091  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. ANASTASIA ADVERTISING ART, INC.  (1975)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Feb. 11, 1977
Whether a sign which has been standing without a current permit as required by Section 479.07(4), Florida Statutes, is eligible for a current permit upon payment of the delinquent fees.Petitioner can't make rules governing legality of signs unless rules are made according to statute governing rules. Recommend signs be left alone.
75-000120  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY  (1975)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: May 14, 1975
Whether subject sign required current permits and whether said signs were in an "unsightly condition".Respondent's signs were unsightly/unpermitted, but subsequently these violations were cleared. Recommended Order/Final Order: dismiss complaint where there were no longer any violations by Respondent.

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