http://am1050.com/2012/supreme-court-ruling-on-crowel-vs-mc-drainage-board/ Tue, 21 May 2013 08:19:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 http://am1050.com/2012/supreme-court-ruling-on-crowel-vs-mc-drainage-board/comment-page-1/#comment-1145 AnnF Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:58:32 +0000 http://am1050.com/?p=39105#comment-1145 Thanks, Kathy! Thanks, Kathy!

]]> http://am1050.com/2012/supreme-court-ruling-on-crowel-vs-mc-drainage-board/comment-page-1/#comment-1143 Kathy Bottorff Thu, 02 Aug 2012 03:22:29 +0000 http://am1050.com/?p=39105#comment-1143 This is a County Drainage Board issue, not city....I don't know but will try to find out. This is a County Drainage Board issue, not city….I don’t know but will try to find out.

]]> http://am1050.com/2012/supreme-court-ruling-on-crowel-vs-mc-drainage-board/comment-page-1/#comment-1141 AnnF Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:21:32 +0000 http://am1050.com/?p=39105#comment-1141 How much money was spent by the city for legal fees? It has to be more than $7000. I understand setting a precedent, but I agree with the appellate court - Mr. Crowel had nothing to gain from this project. How much money was spent by the city for legal fees? It has to be more than $7000. I understand setting a precedent, but I agree with the appellate court – Mr. Crowel had nothing to gain from this project.

]]>