Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1851 - 1860 of 4989 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) pintu besi double Padang Ganting Kabupaten Tanah Datar Sumatera Barat.
Search results 1851 - 1860 of 4989 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) pintu besi double Padang Ganting Kabupaten Tanah Datar Sumatera Barat.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
it doubling back on its prior routes and driving away from the squad car. Eventually, the vehicle parked
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=709729 - 2023-10-03
it doubling back on its prior routes and driving away from the squad car. Eventually, the vehicle parked
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=709729 - 2023-10-03
COURT OF APPEALS
a good argument that they should be able to double check what that expert said. It’s certainly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31137 - 2007-12-10
a good argument that they should be able to double check what that expert said. It’s certainly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31137 - 2007-12-10
COURT OF APPEALS
and punitive damages, double damages under § 100.18(11)(d), costs and attorney fees. Green Box, through
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=147173 - 2015-08-24
and punitive damages, double damages under § 100.18(11)(d), costs and attorney fees. Green Box, through
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=147173 - 2015-08-24
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
noting that this figure would be further subject to statutory doubling. While neither party has cited
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=980070 - 2025-07-09
noting that this figure would be further subject to statutory doubling. While neither party has cited
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=980070 - 2025-07-09
COURT OF APPEALS
convictions are multiplicitous and violated double jeopardy. See generally State v. Derango, 2000 WI 89, ¶26
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74190 - 2011-11-21
convictions are multiplicitous and violated double jeopardy. See generally State v. Derango, 2000 WI 89, ¶26
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74190 - 2011-11-21
CA Blank Order
the repeater allegations violated double jeopardy, as well as the Eighth and Thirteenth Amendments. He also
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131833 - 2014-12-15
the repeater allegations violated double jeopardy, as well as the Eighth and Thirteenth Amendments. He also
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131833 - 2014-12-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
case. Here, the statutes set a mandatory minimum fine of $600, doubled to $1,200 because Gurtowski’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=679980 - 2023-07-19
case. Here, the statutes set a mandatory minimum fine of $600, doubled to $1,200 because Gurtowski’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=679980 - 2023-07-19
[PDF]
NOTICE
of the consecutive sentence to both of the concurrent sentences violates double jeopardy. Specifically, Schaar
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33010 - 2014-09-15
of the consecutive sentence to both of the concurrent sentences violates double jeopardy. Specifically, Schaar
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33010 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
that application of the consecutive sentence to both of the concurrent sentences violates double jeopardy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33010 - 2008-06-11
that application of the consecutive sentence to both of the concurrent sentences violates double jeopardy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33010 - 2008-06-11
State v. Morgan Larson
in violation of his double-jeopardy protection. We reject these contentions and affirm. Larson was formerly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11254 - 2005-03-31
in violation of his double-jeopardy protection. We reject these contentions and affirm. Larson was formerly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11254 - 2005-03-31