Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1001 - 1010 of 4808 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Pintu Baja Fortress Double Kampung Melayu Bengkulu.
Search results 1001 - 1010 of 4808 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Pintu Baja Fortress Double Kampung Melayu Bengkulu.
State v. Jamerrel Everett
that the State’s prosecution constituted double jeopardy because he had previously been disciplined for the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14846 - 2005-03-31
that the State’s prosecution constituted double jeopardy because he had previously been disciplined for the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14846 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
claims of double jeopardy violations. We reject these contentions, and affirm. Background ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84417 - 2014-09-15
claims of double jeopardy violations. We reject these contentions, and affirm. Background ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84417 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Jamerrel Everett
. ¶4 Second, Everett contends that the State’s prosecution constituted double jeopardy because he had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14846 - 2017-09-21
. ¶4 Second, Everett contends that the State’s prosecution constituted double jeopardy because he had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14846 - 2017-09-21
State v. Otis G. Mattox
with a dangerous weapon, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.23(1)(a) and 939.63(1)(2) (2003-04),[2] on double jeopardy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25143 - 2006-06-27
with a dangerous weapon, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.23(1)(a) and 939.63(1)(2) (2003-04),[2] on double jeopardy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25143 - 2006-06-27
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
’ fees and doubling under WIS. STAT. § 100.20(5), and that Armstrong was also entitled to damages
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1128965 - 2026-06-09
’ fees and doubling under WIS. STAT. § 100.20(5), and that Armstrong was also entitled to damages
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1128965 - 2026-06-09
[PDF]
State v. Otis G. Mattox
)(a) and 939.63(1)(2) (2003-04), 2 on double jeopardy grounds. Mattox submits that the trial court’s reasons
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25143 - 2017-09-21
)(a) and 939.63(1)(2) (2003-04), 2 on double jeopardy grounds. Mattox submits that the trial court’s reasons
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25143 - 2017-09-21
State v. Linda Lacey
relief. We discern that Lacey raises six arguments on appeal: (1) her double jeopardy rights were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6992 - 2005-03-31
relief. We discern that Lacey raises six arguments on appeal: (1) her double jeopardy rights were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6992 - 2005-03-31
State v. Linda Lacey
relief. We discern that Lacey raises six arguments on appeal: (1) her double jeopardy rights were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6991 - 2005-03-31
relief. We discern that Lacey raises six arguments on appeal: (1) her double jeopardy rights were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6991 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
suffered violations of his right to be free from double jeopardy. We are satisfied that the supplemental
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=547552 - 2022-07-26
suffered violations of his right to be free from double jeopardy. We are satisfied that the supplemental
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=547552 - 2022-07-26
State v. Jonathan L. Franklin
testimony and found the attorney’s to be more credible, stating that “much of it [wa]s corroborated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14414 - 2005-03-31
testimony and found the attorney’s to be more credible, stating that “much of it [wa]s corroborated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14414 - 2005-03-31