Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1001 - 1010 of 20302 for sai.

[PDF] Kenosha County Department of Child & Family Services v. Cornelius N. F.
adequate. We further hold that although the circuit court did not thereafter expressly say that Cornelius
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6377 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] NOTICE
court that he and his lawyer ‘did struggle’ in attempting to talk to one another, saying: ‘I think I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38808 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
You say that my client changed his statement many times. True? No. 2021AP1840-CR 8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=718325 - 2023-10-24

COURT OF APPEALS
) and 939.05. His plea was entered under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), which says
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44860 - 2009-12-21

Patricia Ann Johnson v. Bruce Hinton Johnson
, 1994. When the trial court asked Bruce if he had any remarks, he responded, “Well, I came here to say
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8442 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Patrick P. Fee v. Board of Review for the Town of Florence
this action, saying under § 70.47(7)(a), the taxpayer did not obtain a right to a hearing before the board
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5434 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Kenosha County Department of Child & Family Services v. Cornelius N. F.
adequate. We further hold that although the circuit court did not thereafter expressly say that Cornelius
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6379 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] NOTICE
.” He further stated, “I’m not saying it did happen and I’m not saying it didn’t happen
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36843 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Kenosha County Department of Child & Family Services v. Cornelius N. F.
adequate. We further hold that although the circuit court did not thereafter expressly say that Cornelius
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6378 - 2017-09-19

County of Dodge v. Michael J.K.
access" is ambiguous because it is "susceptible to two different, reasonable interpretations." He says
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11222 - 2005-03-31