Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1661 - 1670 of 4791 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) pintu double besi minimalis Arjasa Kabupaten Situbondo Jawa Timur.
Search results 1661 - 1670 of 4791 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) pintu double besi minimalis Arjasa Kabupaten Situbondo Jawa Timur.
State v. John T. Miller
). He moved to dismiss the charge on double-jeopardy grounds, claiming that the administrative
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10763 - 2005-03-31
). He moved to dismiss the charge on double-jeopardy grounds, claiming that the administrative
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10763 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
the Double Jeopardy Clause; (3) the ALJ’s “time” credit calculations were incorrect; and (4) he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1084172 - 2026-03-04
the Double Jeopardy Clause; (3) the ALJ’s “time” credit calculations were incorrect; and (4) he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1084172 - 2026-03-04
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
6 open records request; (2) double jeopardy; (3) judicial bias; (4) extortion; (5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107322 - 2017-09-21
6 open records request; (2) double jeopardy; (3) judicial bias; (4) extortion; (5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107322 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
case. Here, the statutes set a mandatory minimum fine of $600, doubled to $1,200 because Gurtowski’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=679980 - 2023-07-19
case. Here, the statutes set a mandatory minimum fine of $600, doubled to $1,200 because Gurtowski’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=679980 - 2023-07-19
COURT OF APPEALS
an order denying his claim for double his security deposit, costs, and attorney fees, and granting Jeff
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30681 - 2007-10-22
an order denying his claim for double his security deposit, costs, and attorney fees, and granting Jeff
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30681 - 2007-10-22
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
is true of Fowler’s contention that his convictions are multiplicitous and violated double jeopardy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=74190 - 2014-09-15
is true of Fowler’s contention that his convictions are multiplicitous and violated double jeopardy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=74190 - 2014-09-15
State v. Debra L. Van Riper
Van Riper was a repeater, the penalty enhancer doubled the maximum possible fines and terms
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13283 - 2005-03-31
Van Riper was a repeater, the penalty enhancer doubled the maximum possible fines and terms
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13283 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Heather M. M.
the separation of powers doctrine. ¶10 The State raises the issue of double jeopardy at the end of its brief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4002 - 2017-09-20
the separation of powers doctrine. ¶10 The State raises the issue of double jeopardy at the end of its brief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4002 - 2017-09-20
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 28, 2014 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Ap...
) double jeopardy; (3) judicial bias; (4) extortion; (5) unprofessional prosecutorial conduct; and (6
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107322 - 2014-01-27
) double jeopardy; (3) judicial bias; (4) extortion; (5) unprofessional prosecutorial conduct; and (6
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107322 - 2014-01-27
State v. David G. Alexander
was barred by the double-jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment as a result of the prior administrative
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11091 - 2005-03-31
was barred by the double-jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment as a result of the prior administrative
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11091 - 2005-03-31