Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 17591 - 17600 of 58506 for speedy trial.
Search results 17591 - 17600 of 58506 for speedy trial.
[PDF]
State v. Christopher L. Nagel
to relief from this court.2 Alternatively, this court disagrees that the trial court committed the errors
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13302 - 2017-09-21
to relief from this court.2 Alternatively, this court disagrees that the trial court committed the errors
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13302 - 2017-09-21
CA Blank Order
resided at the time of trial. In June 2013, the County filed the petition for the termination of parental
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143491 - 2015-06-30
resided at the time of trial. In June 2013, the County filed the petition for the termination of parental
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143491 - 2015-06-30
State v. Richard O. Mattingly
postconviction motion for a new trial. Mattingly contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13569 - 2005-03-31
postconviction motion for a new trial. Mattingly contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13569 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Travis S. Wimpie
from an order denying his postconviction motion for a new trial. Wimpie claims that: (1) the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4087 - 2017-09-20
from an order denying his postconviction motion for a new trial. Wimpie claims that: (1) the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4087 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
NOTICE
to entrapment. But the trial court granted the State’s motion in limine prohibiting Peterson from erecting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=37590 - 2014-09-15
to entrapment. But the trial court granted the State’s motion in limine prohibiting Peterson from erecting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=37590 - 2014-09-15
Peter A. Liptak v. Theresa A. Liptak
appeals the property division entered in his divorce judgment.[1] He argues that the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5182 - 2005-03-31
appeals the property division entered in his divorce judgment.[1] He argues that the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5182 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
into probate over their objections. The Appellants challenge both the trial court’s findings of fact and its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36297 - 2009-04-29
into probate over their objections. The Appellants challenge both the trial court’s findings of fact and its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36297 - 2009-04-29
[PDF]
WI 33
requested a new trial. The court heard his motions on May 4, 2005, and denied both. On May 24, 2005
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28525 - 2014-09-15
requested a new trial. The court heard his motions on May 4, 2005, and denied both. On May 24, 2005
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28525 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Gary Tate
was inadequate to give him notice of the crimes, that trial counsel was deficient for not challenging
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16195 - 2017-09-21
was inadequate to give him notice of the crimes, that trial counsel was deficient for not challenging
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16195 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
ineffective assistance of trial counsel: (1) as a result of his attorney’s failure to object to a police
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88800 - 2012-10-29
ineffective assistance of trial counsel: (1) as a result of his attorney’s failure to object to a police
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88800 - 2012-10-29