Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 10391 - 10400 of 26583 for marital settlement agreement/1000.
Search results 10391 - 10400 of 26583 for marital settlement agreement/1000.
[PDF]
State v. Harold Merryfield
because the State breached the plea agreement in the prior prosecution. We reject both claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13907 - 2014-09-15
because the State breached the plea agreement in the prior prosecution. We reject both claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13907 - 2014-09-15
State v. Harold Merryfield
agreement in the prior prosecution. We reject both claims, concluding that Merryfield’s guilty pleas
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13905 - 2005-03-31
agreement in the prior prosecution. We reject both claims, concluding that Merryfield’s guilty pleas
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13905 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Harold Merryfield
because the State breached the plea agreement in the prior prosecution. We reject both claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13906 - 2014-09-15
because the State breached the plea agreement in the prior prosecution. We reject both claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13906 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 27, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of ...
agreement”; and (3) the State violated the plea agreement during its sentencing argument by mentioning
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27532 - 2006-12-26
agreement”; and (3) the State violated the plea agreement during its sentencing argument by mentioning
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27532 - 2006-12-26
State v. Harold Merryfield
agreement in the prior prosecution. We reject both claims, concluding that Merryfield’s guilty pleas
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13906 - 2005-03-31
agreement in the prior prosecution. We reject both claims, concluding that Merryfield’s guilty pleas
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13906 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
by the plea agreement”; and (3) the State violated the plea agreement during its sentencing argument
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27532 - 2014-09-15
by the plea agreement”; and (3) the State violated the plea agreement during its sentencing argument
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27532 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
Offer and the Second Addendum. The one-page agreement the parties signed on that date (the “Closing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145483 - 2017-09-21
Offer and the Second Addendum. The one-page agreement the parties signed on that date (the “Closing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145483 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Comments on Supreme Court rule 16-04 - Ripp
. Re: Proposed Petition 1604 Mediator/ Written Agreement Dear Ms. Fremgen: I am writing
/supreme/docs/1604commentsripp.pdf - 2016-12-08
. Re: Proposed Petition 1604 Mediator/ Written Agreement Dear Ms. Fremgen: I am writing
/supreme/docs/1604commentsripp.pdf - 2016-12-08
Elaine Friedman v. Cedrick Pennington
the home. Cedric, Kathy, and Arthur all testified, however, that they intended that their agreement would
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12609 - 2005-03-31
the home. Cedric, Kathy, and Arthur all testified, however, that they intended that their agreement would
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12609 - 2005-03-31
State v. Jeffrey A. Pluemer
a deferred sentencing agreement. We affirm. ¶2 In 1999 Pluemer pleaded no contest to certain
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2193 - 2005-03-31
a deferred sentencing agreement. We affirm. ¶2 In 1999 Pluemer pleaded no contest to certain
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2193 - 2005-03-31