Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12261 - 12270 of 73646 for we.
Search results 12261 - 12270 of 73646 for we.
Evelyn C. R. v. Tykila S.
rights. We conclude that by failing to appear for the scheduled fact-finding hearing, Tykila S. has
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2748 - 2013-08-05
rights. We conclude that by failing to appear for the scheduled fact-finding hearing, Tykila S. has
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2748 - 2013-08-05
COURT OF APPEALS
a sufficient investigation to determine the credibility of the evidence produced. We reject each
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90908 - 2006-10-30
a sufficient investigation to determine the credibility of the evidence produced. We reject each
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90908 - 2006-10-30
COURT OF APPEALS
that the circuit court coerced the jury into reaching a verdict. We disagree and affirm. ¶2 This tort
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31007 - 2007-11-28
that the circuit court coerced the jury into reaching a verdict. We disagree and affirm. ¶2 This tort
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31007 - 2007-11-28
Frontsheet
publicly reprimanded. ¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report of Referee Jonathan V. Goodman
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=139097 - 2015-04-02
publicly reprimanded. ¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report of Referee Jonathan V. Goodman
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=139097 - 2015-04-02
State v. Derrick Emerson
enhancer, arguing that the court failed to comply with statutory sentencing requirements. We agree
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6737 - 2005-03-31
enhancer, arguing that the court failed to comply with statutory sentencing requirements. We agree
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6737 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
for the arrest. We affirm the order. ¶2 The test for probable cause in this context is whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34375 - 2008-10-22
for the arrest. We affirm the order. ¶2 The test for probable cause in this context is whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34375 - 2008-10-22
Frank D. Hurst Corporation v. Tamara A. Johnson
that LIRC's decision is not supported by the facts in the record. We reject Hurst's contention and affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10530 - 2014-01-29
that LIRC's decision is not supported by the facts in the record. We reject Hurst's contention and affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10530 - 2014-01-29
COURT OF APPEALS
a change of venue, and failing to challenge a juror at voir dire. We affirm for the reasons discussed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71879 - 2011-10-05
a change of venue, and failing to challenge a juror at voir dire. We affirm for the reasons discussed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71879 - 2011-10-05
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
upon to impose his sentence had been vacated after he was sentenced.2 Although we reject Socha’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=647908 - 2023-04-25
upon to impose his sentence had been vacated after he was sentenced.2 Although we reject Socha’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=647908 - 2023-04-25
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
assistance of counsel. We reject all arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 The State filed a criminal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=374319 - 2021-06-08
assistance of counsel. We reject all arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 The State filed a criminal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=374319 - 2021-06-08