Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14231 - 14240 of 73766 for we.
Search results 14231 - 14240 of 73766 for we.
CA Blank Order
to attorney fees. Based upon our review of the briefs and the record, we conclude that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=118292 - 2014-07-29
to attorney fees. Based upon our review of the briefs and the record, we conclude that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=118292 - 2014-07-29
COURT OF APPEALS
in the reports of two psychologists who testified on his behalf. We disagree and affirm. ¶2 Ziegler
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102022 - 2013-09-17
in the reports of two psychologists who testified on his behalf. We disagree and affirm. ¶2 Ziegler
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102022 - 2013-09-17
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
and an independent review of the record as mandated by Anders and RULE 809.32, we summarily affirm the judgment
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=213862 - 2018-06-06
and an independent review of the record as mandated by Anders and RULE 809.32, we summarily affirm the judgment
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=213862 - 2018-06-06
City of Kiel v. Michael T. Roehrig
detention of him was illegal under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). We reject Roehrig’s argument. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12235 - 2005-03-31
detention of him was illegal under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). We reject Roehrig’s argument. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12235 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
denying his sentence modification motion. We conclude that Lambert is not entitled to sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31847 - 2008-02-19
denying his sentence modification motion. We conclude that Lambert is not entitled to sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31847 - 2008-02-19
CA Blank Order
so. Upon our review of the no-merit report and the record, we conclude that no arguably meritorious
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=128261 - 2014-11-18
so. Upon our review of the no-merit report and the record, we conclude that no arguably meritorious
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=128261 - 2014-11-18
[PDF]
Norman O. Brown v. Richard Artison
in granting the motion to dismiss, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. NO. 96-1491 2 I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10872 - 2017-09-20
in granting the motion to dismiss, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. NO. 96-1491 2 I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10872 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
. Based on our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=96625 - 2014-09-15
. Based on our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=96625 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Town of Eldorado v. Harry Schmitz, Jr.
the No. 02-0885 2 forfeiture imposed by the trial court was excessive. Because we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5105 - 2017-09-19
the No. 02-0885 2 forfeiture imposed by the trial court was excessive. Because we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5105 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
an evidentiary hearing on the petition. We affirm. I. ¶2 In June of 2000, the circuit court found Parrish
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82788 - 2012-05-21
an evidentiary hearing on the petition. We affirm. I. ¶2 In June of 2000, the circuit court found Parrish
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82788 - 2012-05-21