Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1761 - 1770 of 13657 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Pintu Baja Fortress Double Door Wlingi Blitar.

State v. Jill J. Kunish-Wolff
the prohibition against double jeopardy.[1] In Tkacz, slip op. at 4-8, we concluded that because of the manner
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12311 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
Act (ADA). He also alleged “constitutional deprivations of Double Jeopardy.” He sought an award
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=752818 - 2024-01-18

Thomas Jelinski v. Michael Barr
Lastly, Jelinski contends that the trial court erred in not awarding him double damages as provided under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15473 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
double counted. 2 In its findings of fact
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=528930 - 2022-06-07

[PDF] State v. Jill J. Kunish-Wolff
by delivery of heroin violates the prohibition against double jeopardy.1 In Tkacz, slip op. at 4-8, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12311 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Kurt W. Warrington
but the prohibition against double jeopardy prevents us from ordering a second trial. We also conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8078 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Robert Koszewski v. David H. Schwarz
) the revocation proceedings were untimely; and (3) the revocation proceedings violated Koszewski’s double
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5233 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Thomas Jelinski v. Michael Barr
). ¶13 Lastly, Jelinski contends that the trial court erred in not awarding him double damages
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15473 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS
the double jeopardy clause when it revoked his probation for violations for which he had already been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33658 - 2008-08-05

Robert Koszewski v. David H. Schwarz
Koszewski’s double jeopardy rights. The ALJ denied the motion. We, too, conclude that the motion to dismiss
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5233 - 2005-03-31