Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1771 - 1780 of 12912 for prosecuting.
Search results 1771 - 1780 of 12912 for prosecuting.
COURT OF APPEALS
costs Mr. Anderson’s conduct was imposing upon Ms. Anderson: [Mr. Anderson] has failed to prosecute
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107651 - 2014-02-03
costs Mr. Anderson’s conduct was imposing upon Ms. Anderson: [Mr. Anderson] has failed to prosecute
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107651 - 2014-02-03
State v. Melvin C. Welch
in which to prosecute Welch. ¶2 Although we conclude that Welch is barred from
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4866 - 2005-03-31
in which to prosecute Welch. ¶2 Although we conclude that Welch is barred from
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4866 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
precipitated the incident by coming onto his property. The State responded that its theory of prosecution
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90233 - 2012-12-10
precipitated the incident by coming onto his property. The State responded that its theory of prosecution
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90233 - 2012-12-10
COURT OF APPEALS
-prosecution claim. ¶5 Stokes appealed, and we remanded the cases to the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85767 - 2012-08-06
-prosecution claim. ¶5 Stokes appealed, and we remanded the cases to the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85767 - 2012-08-06
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
court went on to deny Stokes’s vindictive-prosecution claim. ¶5 Stokes appealed, and we remanded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=85767 - 2014-09-15
court went on to deny Stokes’s vindictive-prosecution claim. ¶5 Stokes appealed, and we remanded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=85767 - 2014-09-15
State v. Jonathan C. Segner
prosecution witness. We reject his arguments and affirm the judgment and order.[1] ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15355 - 2005-03-31
prosecution witness. We reject his arguments and affirm the judgment and order.[1] ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15355 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
different statutes in a single prosecution for ‘the same offense’ violates double jeopardy when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31303 - 2014-09-15
different statutes in a single prosecution for ‘the same offense’ violates double jeopardy when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31303 - 2014-09-15
State v. Michael J. Lindholm
prosecutions; to protect the person charged from open and public accusations of crime; to avoid both
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15938 - 2005-03-31
prosecutions; to protect the person charged from open and public accusations of crime; to avoid both
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15938 - 2005-03-31
State v. Patrick L. M.
petition has prosecutive merit. See Wis. Stat. § 938.18(4)(a). If prosecutive merit is found, the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6130 - 2005-03-31
petition has prosecutive merit. See Wis. Stat. § 938.18(4)(a). If prosecutive merit is found, the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6130 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Dequelvin M. Douglas
would kill him for shooting his leader. The prosecution’s theory was that this was an inter-gang
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12005 - 2017-09-21
would kill him for shooting his leader. The prosecution’s theory was that this was an inter-gang
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12005 - 2017-09-21