Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14361 - 14370 of 46074 for paternity test paper work.

COURT OF APPEALS
misapplied Wis. Stat. § 343.305(3)(ar)1. when it determined Nirmaier’s blood test results did not need
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=75739 - 2011-12-27

State v. Johnny L. White
in the afternoon that day. When tested after the assault, the victim tested positive for the presence of chlamydia
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11473 - 2005-03-31

State v. Terry Griffith
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17384 - 2005-03-31

Gloria C. Pinczkowski v. Milwaukee County
if it cannot acquire the land by purchase at a satisfactory price, the amount paid is not a fair test of market
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6758 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Gloria C. Pinczkowski v. Milwaukee County
3 Although many of the moving papers, including the notices of appeal, refer to Gloria
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6632 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Gloria C. Pinczkowski v. Milwaukee County
3 Although many of the moving papers, including the notices of appeal, refer to Gloria
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6758 - 2017-09-20

Gloria C. Pinczkowski v. Milwaukee County
if it cannot acquire the land by purchase at a satisfactory price, the amount paid is not a fair test of market
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6632 - 2005-03-31

State v. Donald H. Maier
under the implied-consent law for his refusal to submit to a chemical test of his blood-alcohol content
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10824 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Donald H. Maier
the implied-consent law for his refusal to submit to a chemical test of his blood-alcohol content, argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10824 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] Frontsheet
that an interpretation of "shall" as mandatory would lead to an absurd result. See, e.g., In re Paternity of S.A. II
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192410 - 2017-10-09