Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 18131 - 18140 of 58950 for SMALL CLAIMS.
Search results 18131 - 18140 of 58950 for SMALL CLAIMS.
COURT OF APPEALS
, claiming Southwood owed over $60,000 on the account at that time, mostly accrued interest. Southwood
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31931 - 2008-02-25
, claiming Southwood owed over $60,000 on the account at that time, mostly accrued interest. Southwood
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31931 - 2008-02-25
State v. Albin E. Bartosz
actions by the State, the instant action is barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion. Because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8294 - 2005-03-31
actions by the State, the instant action is barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion. Because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8294 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
suppression claim indefinitely in multiple postconviction motions. Instead, trial No. 2018AP2196
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=248687 - 2019-10-11
suppression claim indefinitely in multiple postconviction motions. Instead, trial No. 2018AP2196
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=248687 - 2019-10-11
COURT OF APPEALS
dissented: Donna D. and Lynn G.[2] I. ¶3 Jimmy J.’s only claim of error on this appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=118898 - 2014-08-04
dissented: Donna D. and Lynn G.[2] I. ¶3 Jimmy J.’s only claim of error on this appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=118898 - 2014-08-04
LaVerne Swanson v. Ronald W. Nelson
that there was no agreement to pay for repairs. The trial court rejected the unjust enrichment claim because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10954 - 2005-03-31
that there was no agreement to pay for repairs. The trial court rejected the unjust enrichment claim because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10954 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
summary judgment; and (3) Hiser was not required to support his claim with expert testimony. Because we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=169483 - 2017-09-21
summary judgment; and (3) Hiser was not required to support his claim with expert testimony. Because we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=169483 - 2017-09-21
Richard E. Carter v. Audrey B. Schram
declaring interests in land located on the shore of Lake Michigan. Carter, who owns a nearby lot, claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11487 - 2005-03-31
declaring interests in land located on the shore of Lake Michigan. Carter, who owns a nearby lot, claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11487 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Alan David McCormack
. McCormack now claims to have new evidence, partially corroborated by physical evidence, that Larson’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6052 - 2017-09-19
. McCormack now claims to have new evidence, partially corroborated by physical evidence, that Larson’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6052 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
relief was not available to George because he had previously litigated this claim and because he had
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=221237 - 2018-11-16
relief was not available to George because he had previously litigated this claim and because he had
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=221237 - 2018-11-16
[PDF]
NOTICE
Paderta) appeal from a summary judgment dismissing their claims against Glenwood Springs Club, Inc
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35673 - 2014-09-15
Paderta) appeal from a summary judgment dismissing their claims against Glenwood Springs Club, Inc
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35673 - 2014-09-15