Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 17371 - 17380 of 83837 for simple case search/1000.
Search results 17371 - 17380 of 83837 for simple case search/1000.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and 4 The final circuit court decision in this case was issued in December 2018. Our supreme court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=389831 - 2021-07-13
and 4 The final circuit court decision in this case was issued in December 2018. Our supreme court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=389831 - 2021-07-13
State v. Mark R. Anderson
did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.[2] ¶9
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20383 - 2005-11-22
did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.[2] ¶9
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20383 - 2005-11-22
COURT OF APPEALS
. Pamela said she recently had seen him in the house with a gun. A search of the home revealed the drugs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101482 - 2013-09-03
. Pamela said she recently had seen him in the house with a gun. A search of the home revealed the drugs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101482 - 2013-09-03
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
be summarily affirmed because there is no arguable issue of merit that could be raised on appeal. The case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=254093 - 2020-02-18
be summarily affirmed because there is no arguable issue of merit that could be raised on appeal. The case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=254093 - 2020-02-18
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the trial court’s sentencing intent” in cases of ambiguity). “A search for the trial court’s sentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=117364 - 2017-09-21
the trial court’s sentencing intent” in cases of ambiguity). “A search for the trial court’s sentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=117364 - 2017-09-21
Halquist Stone Company, Inc. v. Town of Brothertown Planning and Zoning Committee
. The reviewing court is not required to supply its own factual conclusions through a de novo search of the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12029 - 2005-03-31
. The reviewing court is not required to supply its own factual conclusions through a de novo search of the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12029 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
. See 4 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.5(e), at 687-91 (5th ed. 2012) (discussing reasonable suspicion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=97503 - 2013-05-29
. See 4 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.5(e), at 687-91 (5th ed. 2012) (discussing reasonable suspicion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=97503 - 2013-05-29
[PDF]
NOTICE
. A search of the car revealed a second revolver. ¶3 Lord filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27585 - 2014-09-15
. A search of the car revealed a second revolver. ¶3 Lord filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27585 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=592322 - 2022-11-23
of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=592322 - 2022-11-23
[PDF]
State v. Mark R. Anderson
the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. 2 ¶9 The issue whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20383 - 2017-09-21
the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. 2 ¶9 The issue whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20383 - 2017-09-21