Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12981 - 12990 of 58472 for o j.
Search results 12981 - 12990 of 58472 for o j.
COURT OF APPEALS
should have been administered. The trial court discussed Foley’s opinion, stating: “[S]o I’m
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30152 - 2007-09-04
should have been administered. The trial court discussed Foley’s opinion, stating: “[S]o I’m
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30152 - 2007-09-04
State v. Alex Nieves
of a “bright orange” jacket. According to Courture, Nieves put the gun “[n]o more than six inches” from his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4690 - 2005-03-31
of a “bright orange” jacket. According to Courture, Nieves put the gun “[n]o more than six inches” from his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4690 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Joseph Williams
law and federal case law interpreting it, we noted that “[u]nder 18 U.S.C. § 891, ‘[t]o extend
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11241 - 2017-09-19
law and federal case law interpreting it, we noted that “[u]nder 18 U.S.C. § 891, ‘[t]o extend
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11241 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
: ... [t]o payment of the crime victim and witness surcharge imposed on or after July 2, 2013, until
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=175716 - 2017-09-21
: ... [t]o payment of the crime victim and witness surcharge imposed on or after July 2, 2013, until
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=175716 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
a litigant to give up their adjudicated portion of [an] inheritance in [o]rder to appeal”; and (4) whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=733061 - 2023-11-28
a litigant to give up their adjudicated portion of [an] inheritance in [o]rder to appeal”; and (4) whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=733061 - 2023-11-28
COURT OF APPEALS
was such that it might reasonably make the order or determination in question. See id., ¶35. “[O]n certiorari review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143684 - 2015-06-29
was such that it might reasonably make the order or determination in question. See id., ¶35. “[O]n certiorari review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143684 - 2015-06-29
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
N.W.2d 398 (1987). “[O]fficers are entitled to the support of the usual inferences which reasonable
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=214797 - 2018-06-26
N.W.2d 398 (1987). “[O]fficers are entitled to the support of the usual inferences which reasonable
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=214797 - 2018-06-26
[PDF]
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Susan L. Schuster
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 5 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. states that "[n]o disbursement
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21692 - 2017-09-21
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 5 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. states that "[n]o disbursement
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21692 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
535 (1974) (“[O]bjects falling within the plain view of an officer who has a right
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149774 - 2017-09-21
535 (1974) (“[O]bjects falling within the plain view of an officer who has a right
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149774 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
O’Donnell did. But he immediately further stated that “[o]bviously that has to be your main focus
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=57316 - 2010-12-01
O’Donnell did. But he immediately further stated that “[o]bviously that has to be your main focus
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=57316 - 2010-12-01