Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2831 - 2840 of 3819 for dollar.
Search results 2831 - 2840 of 3819 for dollar.
Mark Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc.
' properties for an amount in the two million dollar range. I advised Mr. Kohel that the Village of Pleasant
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25854 - 2006-07-10
' properties for an amount in the two million dollar range. I advised Mr. Kohel that the Village of Pleasant
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25854 - 2006-07-10
Frontsheet
for disorderly conduct is "a forfeiture of not less than ten dollars nor more than two hundred dollars for each
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36818 - 2009-06-15
for disorderly conduct is "a forfeiture of not less than ten dollars nor more than two hundred dollars for each
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36818 - 2009-06-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
($60.00) Dollars cash in hand paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant and convey
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=176650 - 2017-09-21
($60.00) Dollars cash in hand paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant and convey
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=176650 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Mark Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc.
of Pleasant Prairie purchase the Sondays' properties for an amount in the two million dollar range. I
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25854 - 2017-09-21
of Pleasant Prairie purchase the Sondays' properties for an amount in the two million dollar range. I
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25854 - 2017-09-21
State v. Juergen Huebner
by fine not less than five dollars, nor more than fifty dollars, according to the nature of the offense
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17426 - 2005-03-31
by fine not less than five dollars, nor more than fifty dollars, according to the nature of the offense
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17426 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Oral Argument Synopses - April 2017
thousands of dollars annually to a joint advertising fund with the city, for purposes of marketing the city
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=187340 - 2017-09-21
thousands of dollars annually to a joint advertising fund with the city, for purposes of marketing the city
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=187340 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Oral Argument Synopses - March 2008
, stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from the account of plaintiff Ramachandra Rao. In April 2001
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32009 - 2014-09-15
, stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from the account of plaintiff Ramachandra Rao. In April 2001
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32009 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
for approximately one third of the three-million dollar, five-year budget for the district’s maintenance project
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=980714 - 2025-07-09
for approximately one third of the three-million dollar, five-year budget for the district’s maintenance project
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=980714 - 2025-07-09
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
for approximately one third of the three-million dollar, five-year budget for the district’s maintenance project
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=980714 - 2025-07-09
for approximately one third of the three-million dollar, five-year budget for the district’s maintenance project
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=980714 - 2025-07-09
Jeffrey Schwigel v. David J. Kohlmann
is of no consequence because “[t]he special verdict did not ask the jury to put a dollar amount on the benefits
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4193 - 2005-03-31
is of no consequence because “[t]he special verdict did not ask the jury to put a dollar amount on the benefits
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4193 - 2005-03-31