Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 16091 - 16100 of 68530 for did.
Search results 16091 - 16100 of 68530 for did.
COURT OF APPEALS
was not reasonable because the officer did not have sufficient articulable facts to form a reasonable belief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=134923 - 2015-02-11
was not reasonable because the officer did not have sufficient articulable facts to form a reasonable belief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=134923 - 2015-02-11
Village of Trempealeau v. Mike R. Mikrut
did not need a conditional use permit because he was engaged in the permitted use of a warehouse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6217 - 2005-03-31
did not need a conditional use permit because he was engaged in the permitted use of a warehouse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6217 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
resolved the “contested issue of the child’s last name.”[2] However, Portmann’s petition did not raise
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=145111 - 2015-07-27
resolved the “contested issue of the child’s last name.”[2] However, Portmann’s petition did not raise
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=145111 - 2015-07-27
COURT OF APPEALS
court’s conclusion that he did is supported by its factual findings that are not clearly erroneous
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=47247 - 2010-02-22
court’s conclusion that he did is supported by its factual findings that are not clearly erroneous
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=47247 - 2010-02-22
COURT OF APPEALS
. Brown did not testify at trial. ¶5 Bogan testified as follows. On September 16, 2006, he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=54590 - 2010-09-20
. Brown did not testify at trial. ¶5 Bogan testified as follows. On September 16, 2006, he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=54590 - 2010-09-20
[PDF]
State v. Darryl D. Johnson
preliminary examination: Q And what did -- did you see what [Johnson] did next? NOS. 96-2697-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11442 - 2017-09-19
preliminary examination: Q And what did -- did you see what [Johnson] did next? NOS. 96-2697-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11442 - 2017-09-19
Francesca Poulin v. Indian Community School
]” and that the allegations here supported the argument that Worker’s Compensation Act exclusivity did not apply
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15211 - 2005-03-31
]” and that the allegations here supported the argument that Worker’s Compensation Act exclusivity did not apply
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15211 - 2005-03-31
State v. Thomas Z. P.
and did not fall within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. After Bullion provided further
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4425 - 2005-03-31
and did not fall within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. After Bullion provided further
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4425 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Alan W. Gursky
of an investigation. It further concluded that Gursky’s statements at the police station did not violate his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13214 - 2017-09-21
of an investigation. It further concluded that Gursky’s statements at the police station did not violate his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13214 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State Bank of Cross Plains v. Douglas J. Garavalia
on October 21, 2005, Douglas appeared by counsel; Jessica did not appear by counsel or in person
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25276 - 2017-09-21
on October 21, 2005, Douglas appeared by counsel; Jessica did not appear by counsel or in person
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25276 - 2017-09-21