Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15161 - 15170 of 38556 for t's.
Search results 15161 - 15170 of 38556 for t's.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the State, the defendant, and the Department of Corrections. Under § 971.39(1)(c), “[t]he defendant
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=376161 - 2021-06-16
the State, the defendant, and the Department of Corrections. Under § 971.39(1)(c), “[t]he defendant
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=376161 - 2021-06-16
[PDF]
State v. James Nesbitt
was charged as a habitual offender because of his felony record. The court then said, “[T]here were two
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13113 - 2017-09-21
was charged as a habitual offender because of his felony record. The court then said, “[T]here were two
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13113 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
“professionally unreasonable.” See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. To demonstrate prejudice, “[t]he defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=174071 - 2017-09-21
“professionally unreasonable.” See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. To demonstrate prejudice, “[t]he defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=174071 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, 733 N.W.2d 634. “[T]hat is, ‘the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=938176 - 2025-04-11
, 733 N.W.2d 634. “[T]hat is, ‘the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=938176 - 2025-04-11
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 26, 2019 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=238066 - 2019-03-26
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 26, 2019 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=238066 - 2019-03-26
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
it is unnecessary. No. 2014AP2231-CR 5 ¶9 Breska now appeals. As he sees it, “[t]he central issue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=155842 - 2017-09-21
it is unnecessary. No. 2014AP2231-CR 5 ¶9 Breska now appeals. As he sees it, “[t]he central issue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=155842 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
not waive its jurisdiction. Fourth, Terrell argues that [i]t is pretzel logic of the first order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30127 - 2014-09-15
not waive its jurisdiction. Fourth, Terrell argues that [i]t is pretzel logic of the first order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30127 - 2014-09-15
Gibbs v. Mews Companies, Inc.
636, 638 (1987). Further, “[t]he test is not whether [an appellate] court agrees with the ruling
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11769 - 2005-03-31
636, 638 (1987). Further, “[t]he test is not whether [an appellate] court agrees with the ruling
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11769 - 2005-03-31
Lori Ruff and Kevin G. Ruff v. Evelyn Graziano
of the policyholder’s life and to exclude coverage for hazards associated with regular income-producing activities…. [T
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12606 - 2005-03-31
of the policyholder’s life and to exclude coverage for hazards associated with regular income-producing activities…. [T
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12606 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
insisted in his motion that “[t]he transcript’s truncation of defense counsel’s ground for objecting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=95346 - 2013-04-10
insisted in his motion that “[t]he transcript’s truncation of defense counsel’s ground for objecting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=95346 - 2013-04-10