Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12861 - 12870 of 72987 for we.
Search results 12861 - 12870 of 72987 for we.
[PDF]
State v. Frank L. Little
2 conviction and violated his due process rights.2 We conclude that the recanted statement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7270 - 2017-09-20
2 conviction and violated his due process rights.2 We conclude that the recanted statement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7270 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
Donald Strassman v. Robert J. Muranyi
) timely claim against General Casualty. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND On August 12, 1994
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14678 - 2017-09-21
) timely claim against General Casualty. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND On August 12, 1994
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14678 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
standards of law. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Zimmery and Eva Harvey were married in 1979. In October
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=75140 - 2014-09-15
standards of law. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Zimmery and Eva Harvey were married in 1979. In October
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=75140 - 2014-09-15
State v. Linda Lacey
relief. We discern that Lacey raises six arguments on appeal: (1) her double jeopardy rights were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6991 - 2005-03-31
relief. We discern that Lacey raises six arguments on appeal: (1) her double jeopardy rights were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6991 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
instructions, does not support application of the mandatory minimum. We agree and, therefore, reverse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71521 - 2011-09-28
instructions, does not support application of the mandatory minimum. We agree and, therefore, reverse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71521 - 2011-09-28
Jean L. White v. James B. White
below, we affirm the judgment in all respects. BACKGROUND ¶2 James and Jean were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26585 - 2006-09-27
below, we affirm the judgment in all respects. BACKGROUND ¶2 James and Jean were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26585 - 2006-09-27
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. We conclude that Atwater has not established that counsel was ineffective or that plea withdrawal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=588824 - 2022-11-10
. We conclude that Atwater has not established that counsel was ineffective or that plea withdrawal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=588824 - 2022-11-10
State v. Equinees Boyles
and that he is entitled to a new trial in the interests of justice. We disagree with Boyles's contentions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12790 - 2005-03-31
and that he is entitled to a new trial in the interests of justice. We disagree with Boyles's contentions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12790 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
with instructions to deny Algrem Properties’ motion for relief pending appeal. For reasons discussed below, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=90473 - 2014-09-15
with instructions to deny Algrem Properties’ motion for relief pending appeal. For reasons discussed below, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=90473 - 2014-09-15
Jesse J.A. v. Michael P.S.
request for the permanent injunction. We reject Robert’s arguments and affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12060 - 2014-06-10
request for the permanent injunction. We reject Robert’s arguments and affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12060 - 2014-06-10