Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1001 - 1010 of 4807 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Pintu Baja Fortress Double Mowewe Kolaka Timur.
Search results 1001 - 1010 of 4807 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Pintu Baja Fortress Double Mowewe Kolaka Timur.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
was earning at the time of divorce [wa]s unreasonable.” A determination of an award of child support
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1023381 - 2025-10-15
was earning at the time of divorce [wa]s unreasonable.” A determination of an award of child support
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1023381 - 2025-10-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that “there [wa]s no indicia that would allow the [c]ourt to extrapolate any facts necessary to justify the stop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=174246 - 2017-09-21
that “there [wa]s no indicia that would allow the [c]ourt to extrapolate any facts necessary to justify the stop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=174246 - 2017-09-21
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=14413 - 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=14413 - 2005-03-31
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
[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]
COURT OF APPEALS
motion based on the Double Jeopardy Clause of the federal and state constitutions, 1 which was denied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=233999 - 2019-01-31
motion based on the Double Jeopardy Clause of the federal and state constitutions, 1 which was denied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=233999 - 2019-01-31
[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. 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. 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
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