Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 10171 - 10180 of 69658 for had.
Search results 10171 - 10180 of 69658 for had.
State v. Bart C. Gruetzmacher
imprisonment plus probation. In order to correct a sentencing error, the circuit court had previously
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16689 - 2011-06-22
imprisonment plus probation. In order to correct a sentencing error, the circuit court had previously
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16689 - 2011-06-22
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
and advised that he had the right to respond but he did not file a response. Upon consideration
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=875287 - 2024-11-12
and advised that he had the right to respond but he did not file a response. Upon consideration
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=875287 - 2024-11-12
[PDF]
Oral Argument Synopses - September 29, 2020
commissioners. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Commission had failed to change the registration status from
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=291659 - 2020-09-23
commissioners. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Commission had failed to change the registration status from
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=291659 - 2020-09-23
[PDF]
Supreme Court calendar and case synopsis - Sep 29, 2020
commissioners. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Commission had failed to change the registration status from
/courts/supreme/docs/oac/oac092920.pdf - 2020-09-21
commissioners. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Commission had failed to change the registration status from
/courts/supreme/docs/oac/oac092920.pdf - 2020-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, 2016. The policy had a retroactive date of August 8, 2011 (the “look back date”). As relevant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=255068 - 2020-02-25
, 2016. The policy had a retroactive date of August 8, 2011 (the “look back date”). As relevant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=255068 - 2020-02-25
[PDF]
Brown County Department of Human Services v. Virjean L.
Department wanted the condition requiring prior approval of housemates placed on Virjean because she had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26560 - 2017-09-21
Department wanted the condition requiring prior approval of housemates placed on Virjean because she had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26560 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
testified at trial that he did not commit the crimes and had not been at Jillian and Mary’s home on June
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=208973 - 2018-02-27
testified at trial that he did not commit the crimes and had not been at Jillian and Mary’s home on June
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=208973 - 2018-02-27
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Seth P. Hartigan
, as he has not yet petitioned for reinstatement. See SCR 22.28(3).[1] Attorney Hartigan had not been
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20614 - 2005-12-12
, as he has not yet petitioned for reinstatement. See SCR 22.28(3).[1] Attorney Hartigan had not been
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20614 - 2005-12-12
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
detained because police lacked reasonable suspicion that he had operated a vehicle while intoxicated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1079695 - 2026-02-19
detained because police lacked reasonable suspicion that he had operated a vehicle while intoxicated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1079695 - 2026-02-19
Eddie Crews v. Freeman Roofing, Inc.
to work for Freeman. Freeman was a subcontractor for Schranz, which had a contract to repair the roof
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2261 - 2005-03-31
to work for Freeman. Freeman was a subcontractor for Schranz, which had a contract to repair the roof
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2261 - 2005-03-31