Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1771 - 1780 of 16451 for commenting.
Search results 1771 - 1780 of 16451 for commenting.
[PDF]
Oral Argument Synopses - October 2009
no prior record. At sentencing, the trial court made comments about Harris staying home with his toddler
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=42536 - 2014-09-15
no prior record. At sentencing, the trial court made comments about Harris staying home with his toddler
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=42536 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of the divorce. She contends that the totality of the court’s comments demonstrate that the court would only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=654103 - 2023-05-09
of the divorce. She contends that the totality of the court’s comments demonstrate that the court would only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=654103 - 2023-05-09
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
agreement by its comments at sentencing. We reject Buckles’ arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=154420 - 2017-09-21
agreement by its comments at sentencing. We reject Buckles’ arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=154420 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
are “not an opportunity to comment on the district attorney’s office generally,” noting that it was not relevant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=516374 - 2022-05-03
are “not an opportunity to comment on the district attorney’s office generally,” noting that it was not relevant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=516374 - 2022-05-03
[PDF]
State v. DeWayne E. Goodwin
in the presence of the jury, or any of the State’s allegedly improper comments made in closing argument
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15334 - 2017-09-21
in the presence of the jury, or any of the State’s allegedly improper comments made in closing argument
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15334 - 2017-09-21
State v. DeWayne E. Goodwin
, or any of the State’s allegedly improper comments made in closing argument. Following Goodwin’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15334 - 2005-03-31
, or any of the State’s allegedly improper comments made in closing argument. Following Goodwin’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15334 - 2005-03-31
Frontsheet
(May 2005).[4] ¶11 The public notice advised interested persons that they had 30 days to comment
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=61682 - 2011-03-22
(May 2005).[4] ¶11 The public notice advised interested persons that they had 30 days to comment
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=61682 - 2011-03-22
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
operation. The No. 2015AP491 3 meeting was then opened to public comment, and staff read
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=167923 - 2017-09-21
operation. The No. 2015AP491 3 meeting was then opened to public comment, and staff read
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=167923 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Supreme Court rule petition 20-03 - Comments from Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Center”) writes to offer comments on Rules Petition 20-03, which would significantly change practices
/supreme/docs/2003commentsbrennancenter.pdf - 2020-12-01
Center”) writes to offer comments on Rules Petition 20-03, which would significantly change practices
/supreme/docs/2003commentsbrennancenter.pdf - 2020-12-01
City of Milwaukee v. B. Davis Investment, LLC
conclusion that Davis had given permission for an inspection of his property. The court commented: “I had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5174 - 2005-03-31
conclusion that Davis had given permission for an inspection of his property. The court commented: “I had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5174 - 2005-03-31