Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1361 - 1370 of 68485 for did.
Search results 1361 - 1370 of 68485 for did.
[PDF]
State v. Jeffrey Sailing
the arresting officer’s initial detention of Sailing violated the Fourth Amendment. We conclude that it did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11936 - 2017-09-21
the arresting officer’s initial detention of Sailing violated the Fourth Amendment. We conclude that it did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11936 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
). No. 2014AP1570 3 coming to Wilson’s home. O’Connell did not believe Rogstad, and he handcuffed Rogstad
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=144424 - 2017-09-21
). No. 2014AP1570 3 coming to Wilson’s home. O’Connell did not believe Rogstad, and he handcuffed Rogstad
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=144424 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. James M. Stratton
for his refusal. ¶3 Stratton did not request a hearing within ten days, or at any time thereafter
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3554 - 2017-09-19
for his refusal. ¶3 Stratton did not request a hearing within ten days, or at any time thereafter
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3554 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Neil E. Wakershauser
challenged the validity of both his second and third prior convictions, claiming that he did not knowingly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3521 - 2017-09-19
challenged the validity of both his second and third prior convictions, claiming that he did not knowingly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3521 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
and failed to request an instruction on a different lesser-included offense. We conclude that Sidoff did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=38630 - 2009-07-29
and failed to request an instruction on a different lesser-included offense. We conclude that Sidoff did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=38630 - 2009-07-29
COURT OF APPEALS
that the pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he did not properly understand the potential
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29244 - 2007-05-30
that the pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he did not properly understand the potential
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29244 - 2007-05-30
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that the lease would terminate at “11:49 a.m. on the first day of November, 2011.” Fiduciary did not sign
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=75593 - 2014-09-15
that the lease would terminate at “11:49 a.m. on the first day of November, 2011.” Fiduciary did not sign
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=75593 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
and voluntarily entered because he did not properly understand the potential maximum penalty. ¶3 The motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29244 - 2014-09-15
and voluntarily entered because he did not properly understand the potential maximum penalty. ¶3 The motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29244 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
-included offense. We conclude that Sidoff did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38630 - 2014-09-15
-included offense. We conclude that Sidoff did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38630 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
that Brooks’s counsel did not render ineffective assistance because: (1) trial counsel’s performance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=41819 - 2014-09-15
that Brooks’s counsel did not render ineffective assistance because: (1) trial counsel’s performance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=41819 - 2014-09-15