Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 17291 - 17300 of 68290 for did.
Search results 17291 - 17300 of 68290 for did.
Ann Renee Culligan v. Nicolas Cindric
argues that the December 2001 child support modification order did not “substantially affect” placement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5595 - 2005-03-31
argues that the December 2001 child support modification order did not “substantially affect” placement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5595 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Ann Renee Culligan v. Nicolas Cindric
that the December 2001 child support modification order did not “substantially affect” placement because it did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5595 - 2017-09-19
that the December 2001 child support modification order did not “substantially affect” placement because it did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5595 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
NOTICE
the Court that the defendant did commit … the following crimes. Count 1, repeated sexual assault
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29422 - 2014-09-15
the Court that the defendant did commit … the following crimes. Count 1, repeated sexual assault
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29422 - 2014-09-15
State v. John M. Anderson
moved to withdraw in November 2001, indicating that Anderson had told him that Anderson did not believe
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7103 - 2005-03-31
moved to withdraw in November 2001, indicating that Anderson had told him that Anderson did not believe
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7103 - 2005-03-31
Jerry R. Dowdley, Jr. v. Circuit Court for Dane County
’ loss of recreational privileges did not satisfy the “substantial harm” element set forth for the grant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13520 - 2005-03-31
’ loss of recreational privileges did not satisfy the “substantial harm” element set forth for the grant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13520 - 2005-03-31
State v. James C. Sarlund
did not "violate" the injunction because the letter was addressed to Kimberly's parents and not to her
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9190 - 2005-03-31
did not "violate" the injunction because the letter was addressed to Kimberly's parents and not to her
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9190 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
) the circuit court lacked competency to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this case; (3) Kanz did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=54225 - 2014-09-15
) the circuit court lacked competency to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this case; (3) Kanz did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=54225 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that [DeBruin] did provide misleading information and that he made misrepresentations by omission.” The ALJ
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=78530 - 2014-09-15
that [DeBruin] did provide misleading information and that he made misrepresentations by omission.” The ALJ
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=78530 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
on Roberson’s behalf. She said that she did not view herself as a victim and that she had lied to the police
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=613449 - 2023-01-24
on Roberson’s behalf. She said that she did not view herself as a victim and that she had lied to the police
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=613449 - 2023-01-24
[PDF]
Joseph P. LaPere v. June Gengler
the exact date of injury. We conclude that LaPere did comply with the notice of claim provisions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15356 - 2017-09-21
the exact date of injury. We conclude that LaPere did comply with the notice of claim provisions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15356 - 2017-09-21