Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 18801 - 18810 of 68276 for did.
Search results 18801 - 18810 of 68276 for did.
COURT OF APPEALS
) the court did not articulate its findings of ultimate facts upon which its decision on placement rests. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=87124 - 2012-09-18
) the court did not articulate its findings of ultimate facts upon which its decision on placement rests. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=87124 - 2012-09-18
COURT OF APPEALS
an invocation of his right to remain silent. We conclude that Xiong did invoke his right to silence during
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55524 - 2010-10-13
an invocation of his right to remain silent. We conclude that Xiong did invoke his right to silence during
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55524 - 2010-10-13
State v. Scott A. Unertl
because the police officers should have, but did not, advise him of his Miranda rights before obtaining
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21440 - 2006-02-15
because the police officers should have, but did not, advise him of his Miranda rights before obtaining
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21440 - 2006-02-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
, thus the jury did not decide guilt based upon the weight of the cocaine. The State moved to amend
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=631222 - 2023-03-14
, thus the jury did not decide guilt based upon the weight of the cocaine. The State moved to amend
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=631222 - 2023-03-14
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that Smith’s letter did not constitute a new factor because the sentence was not based on whether or not Bell
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=105288 - 2017-09-21
that Smith’s letter did not constitute a new factor because the sentence was not based on whether or not Bell
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=105288 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Howard L. Goodman
them? Do you know what? Maybe something else of yours should be taken care of. Did you ever think
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5515 - 2017-09-19
them? Do you know what? Maybe something else of yours should be taken care of. Did you ever think
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5515 - 2017-09-19
State v. Ronald J. Anderson
and hand it to him, which Anderson did, again without incident.[4] At this point, Cross noted a “mild
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15470 - 2005-03-31
and hand it to him, which Anderson did, again without incident.[4] At this point, Cross noted a “mild
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15470 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
properly granted the State’s motions in limine, to which the defense did not object. Second, during jury
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=724830 - 2023-11-07
properly granted the State’s motions in limine, to which the defense did not object. Second, during jury
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=724830 - 2023-11-07
Caren C. v. Robin M.
to Caren, whether Caren was at fault or not begs the question. The fact is that Robin did not know how
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3701 - 2005-03-31
to Caren, whether Caren was at fault or not begs the question. The fact is that Robin did not know how
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3701 - 2005-03-31
Caren C. v. Robin M.
to Caren, whether Caren was at fault or not begs the question. The fact is that Robin did not know how
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3700 - 2005-03-31
to Caren, whether Caren was at fault or not begs the question. The fact is that Robin did not know how
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3700 - 2005-03-31