Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 16631 - 16640 of 58571 for speedy trial.

[PDF] State v. Steven T. Geary
therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. NO. 97-2400-CR-NM 2 The State charged Geary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12908 - 2017-09-21

State v. Dennis L. Farr
on his motion, Farr testified that trial counsel did not explain to him that he had valid defenses
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11495 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] NOTICE
date of the lease agreement. The trial court determined Cook was responsible for rent for half
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26932 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] County of Jefferson v. Matthew Riley
-2- effect of his plea permitted the trial court to reopen the judgment, pursuant to §§ 345.51
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9850 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Robert W. Ganley v. Department of Corrections
this, and therefore failed to follow the Department’s own rules. However, the trial court found that Ganley had
/ca/errata/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12441 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Robert W. Ganley
this, and therefore failed to follow the Department’s own rules. However, the trial court found that Ganley had
/ca/errata/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12439 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Leslie A. Watkins v. City of Madison
for a new trial. The issue is whether the verdict was impeached by the bailiff's No. 93-2815
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7718 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 31, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of A...
. The trial court determined Cook was responsible for rent for half of September, and all of October, November
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26932 - 2006-10-30

Agribank FCB v. Ronald Malueg
$12,000. Because we conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it allowed 10
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6611 - 2005-03-31

Leslie A. Watkins v. City of Madison
a reconsideration order denying her motion for a new trial. The issue is whether the verdict was impeached
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7718 - 2005-03-31