Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 20531 - 20540 of 51526 for Cost-effective treatments https://simplemedrx.top.

[PDF] Monthly Statistical Report - November 2018
Costs Per Curiam 1 11/8/2018 #2017AP208-CR State of Wisconsin vs. Johnny K. Pinder
/sc/stats/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=230712 - 2018-12-11

[PDF] Atlanta Casualty Companies v. Ka Vue
coverage in connection with the July 4, 2000 accident, and (2) a judgment awarding Brandt her “costs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7622 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] CA Blank Order
, and a fine of $650 plus court costs on each count. The parties also stipulated to an amount of restitution
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=945983 - 2025-04-24

James Sarlund v. Kimberly Mork
the amount of fees and costs they must pay. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9984 - 2005-03-31

Bluebird Ridge, L.L.C. v. Town of Shelby
and costs associated with obtaining the return of the funds.” The vast majority of the amount drawn
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5629 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Cliff Navis Company, Inc. v. Anthony Shomberg
to pay $4000 plus costs for masonry work performed by Cliff Navis Company
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11286 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] James Sarlund v. Kimberly Mork
Sarlund's complaint and finding it frivolous, and from an order setting the amount of fees and costs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9984 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Thomas M. Holmgreen v. John A. Hulleman
that these documents are not a part of the record. The Holmgreens consequently move for fees and costs for what
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25479 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Rhonda Neff v. James Pierzina
Family was prejudiced by Schiesl’s late notice. By the Court.—Judgment affirmed. Costs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15421 - 2017-09-21

Rhonda Neff v. James Pierzina
. By the Court.—Judgment affirmed. Costs to the respondent on appeal. No costs on the cross-appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15421 - 2005-03-31