Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12811 - 12820 of 72753 for we.
Search results 12811 - 12820 of 72753 for we.
State v. Peter Jay Bartram
in “actual prosecutorial vindictiveness,” and we agree that the record before the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15790 - 2005-03-31
in “actual prosecutorial vindictiveness,” and we agree that the record before the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15790 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
to others. We affirm because we conclude that the different forms of dangerousness listed in § 51.20 do
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33705 - 2008-08-12
to others. We affirm because we conclude that the different forms of dangerousness listed in § 51.20 do
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33705 - 2008-08-12
[PDF]
Randall and Roberta Spence v. Thomas and Diane Kolodzienski
that preclude summary judgment; and (4) further discovery is required. We affirm the summary judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5190 - 2017-09-19
that preclude summary judgment; and (4) further discovery is required. We affirm the summary judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5190 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Jesse J.A. v. Michael P.S.
for the permanent injunction. We reject Robert’s arguments and affirm. FACTS Jesse, a five-year-old boy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12060 - 2017-09-21
for the permanent injunction. We reject Robert’s arguments and affirm. FACTS Jesse, a five-year-old boy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12060 - 2017-09-21
Donald Strassman v. Robert J. Muranyi
claim against General Casualty. We disagree and affirm. Background On August 12
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14678 - 2005-03-31
claim against General Casualty. We disagree and affirm. Background On August 12
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14678 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
on the Garzas’ property and entered summary judgments in favor of ATC. For the reasons discussed below, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=155585 - 2017-09-21
on the Garzas’ property and entered summary judgments in favor of ATC. For the reasons discussed below, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=155585 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Richard R. Yakes
property. We adopt the reasoning of United States v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1995), and conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13646 - 2017-09-21
property. We adopt the reasoning of United States v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1995), and conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13646 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
) Omegbu is entitled to judgment on the pleadings. We reject each of these contentions, and affirm.1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=61611 - 2014-09-15
) Omegbu is entitled to judgment on the pleadings. We reject each of these contentions, and affirm.1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=61611 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that the prosecutor did not engage in purposeful discrimination is not clearly erroneous, we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=684579 - 2023-08-02
that the prosecutor did not engage in purposeful discrimination is not clearly erroneous, we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=684579 - 2023-08-02
State v. Lisa L. Lappley
a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI). We disagree and affirm the revocation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19776 - 2005-09-28
a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI). We disagree and affirm the revocation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19776 - 2005-09-28