Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1601 - 1610 of 5424 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) pintu besi double plat Sambikerep Kota Surabaya Jawa Timur.

William Ellingsworth v. Frederick Swiggum
of McCrossen Plat, and being a subdivision of Gov. Lot 6, Sec. 34-22-11, for ingress and egress to the Lake
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7954 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] WI APP 222
held that while the record established a platted alley was unopened for one hundred years, and a city
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26404 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] CA Blank Order
plat. DOT did not acquire any property from Dickow through eminent domain as part of this highway
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=741644 - 2023-12-20

Joan M. Kudlick v. James E. Bivens
as an owner of a similarly – situated plat of land would; they have been tending it, caring it, watching over
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7359 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] NOTICE
No. 2007AP217 6 could not record the land contract because, for platted property, a metes and bounds
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32295 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] CA Blank Order
plat. DOT did not acquire any property from Dickow through eminent domain as part of this highway
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=741644 - 2023-12-20

John W. Sweeney, Sr. v. Catherine Farrey
constituted continued confinement and punishment, thereby violating the double jeopardy and ex post facto
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25020 - 2006-05-03

[PDF] John W. Sweeney, Sr. v. Catherine Farrey
violating the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses, and denying him his rights to due process, good
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25020 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Robert Curtis
contends that his due process and double jeopardy rights were violated when the State refiled the charges
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8145 - 2017-09-19

Frontsheet
the sufficiency of the charge[4] that addresses constitutionally sufficient notice and exposure to double jeopardy
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59825 - 2011-02-08