Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1351 - 1360 of 17369 for Cost.

Terry Donskey v. Steve Rickert
specifications involving costs will be executed upon written orders and will become an extra charge over
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10751 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] County of Door v. Kerry Denil
judgment that awarded Door County $21,025.84 under their cost share, pollution abatement contract. Under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8246 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Terry Donskey v. Steve Rickert
according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving costs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10751 - 2017-09-20

Frontsheet
Gernetzke to pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding, which total $2,895.92, as of February 27, 2008
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33456 - 2008-07-16

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 25, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of A...
appealed from a separate order entered on the same date awarding attorney’s fees and costs in amount
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26877 - 2006-10-24

Frontsheet
costs of this proceeding on Attorney Loew. The costs totaled $549.23 as of November 9, 2011. ¶3
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=81737 - 2012-04-26

[PDF] Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James W. Bannen
should be suspended for a period of three years and that he pay the costs of these proceedings. ¶2
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16565 - 2017-09-21

County of Door v. Kerry Denil
appeal a summary judgment that awarded Door County $21,025.84 under their cost share, pollution abatement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8246 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] NOTICE
date awarding attorney’s fees and costs in amount of $1741.50 to the Blaedows. We affirm both orders
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26877 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
attorney fees and costs as a sanction under WIS. STAT. § 802.05(3). ¶3 We reject Huiras’s argument
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=240574 - 2019-05-14