v. Tucker and Assocs., 125 Idaho 429, 432, 871 P.2d 846, 849 (Ct.App.1994). Petersen’s motion satisfies neither the “particularity” nor the “relief or order sought” criteria of Rule 7(b), for it neither tells the claimant what grounds for objection he must be prepared to meet at the hearing nor discloses whether the relief sought is complete disallowance of all the requested fees and costs or only a portion thereof. Petersen asserts that his motion to disallow attorney fees on its face provided adequate notice to Nanney and that the particular reasons for the objection could only be detailed at the hearing on his motion because, until Nanney’s counsel could be examined, it could not be known whether the fee agreement was on a per-hour or a contingency basis o 080, 1085 (Ct.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, when no ground for objection at
holding that objection was timely even though objection was not made until after question was answered holding that objection on grounds of relevance does not preserve an objection for lack of authentication holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court holding that because appenants initial objection in trial court did not mention lack of verification of the cost memorandum objection on that basis was not timely