Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15711 - 15720 of 63629 for records/1000.
Search results 15711 - 15720 of 63629 for records/1000.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
removal was unjustified. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the circuit court considered
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=573740 - 2022-10-04
removal was unjustified. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the circuit court considered
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=573740 - 2022-10-04
[PDF]
NOTICE
to protect the public. Id. at 623. It also may consider the defendant’s past criminal record, history
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=50757 - 2014-09-15
to protect the public. Id. at 623. It also may consider the defendant’s past criminal record, history
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=50757 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
and No. 2021AP1226-CR 2 record, we conclude at conference that this matter is appropriate for summary
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=529357 - 2022-06-07
and No. 2021AP1226-CR 2 record, we conclude at conference that this matter is appropriate for summary
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=529357 - 2022-06-07
[PDF]
�
, and after conducting an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no arguably
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=95985 - 2014-09-15
, and after conducting an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no arguably
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=95985 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=135021 - 2017-09-21
not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=135021 - 2017-09-21
State v. Willie J. Wroten
a discretionary determination, we examine the record to determine if the circuit court logically interpreted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3390 - 2005-03-31
a discretionary determination, we examine the record to determine if the circuit court logically interpreted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3390 - 2005-03-31
Michael H. v. Jeffrey G. N.
that the separation of the siblings was detrimental to their welfare. The record supports the court’s finding. ¶12
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6332 - 2005-03-31
that the separation of the siblings was detrimental to their welfare. The record supports the court’s finding. ¶12
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6332 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
will first recite the facts as found by the small claims court and backed by the record. The record shows
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33690 - 2014-09-15
will first recite the facts as found by the small claims court and backed by the record. The record shows
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33690 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
and are supported by the record. We therefore accept the circuit court’s factual determination that Johnny chose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=75598 - 2011-12-21
and are supported by the record. We therefore accept the circuit court’s factual determination that Johnny chose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=75598 - 2011-12-21
COURT OF APPEALS
in the record we might find her statements. We need not consider arguments unsupported by citations
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92824 - 2013-02-11
in the record we might find her statements. We need not consider arguments unsupported by citations
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92824 - 2013-02-11