Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 18811 - 18820 of 68502 for did.
Search results 18811 - 18820 of 68502 for did.
[PDF]
State v. Peter J. Bartram
that because the State did not present any evidence at the motion hearing, the State failed to meet its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15864 - 2017-09-21
that because the State did not present any evidence at the motion hearing, the State failed to meet its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15864 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Mario M. Martinez
motion, which Attorney Martinez did not contest. When Attorney Martinez did not file an answer
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17404 - 2017-09-21
motion, which Attorney Martinez did not contest. When Attorney Martinez did not file an answer
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17404 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
suppressed because police did not read him his Miranda rights.[2] Dawson further argues that the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=105037 - 2013-12-02
suppressed because police did not read him his Miranda rights.[2] Dawson further argues that the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=105037 - 2013-12-02
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
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the bathroom door while he was urinating. Trial counsel did not ask Robinson about his prior convictions
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197321 - 2017-10-04
the bathroom door while he was urinating. Trial counsel did not ask Robinson about his prior convictions
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197321 - 2017-10-04
State v. Marvin D. Clements
the basis for the charges, “he did not know he was violating the restraining order, injunction, or the terms
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3168 - 2005-03-31
the basis for the charges, “he did not know he was violating the restraining order, injunction, or the terms
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3168 - 2005-03-31
State v. Dianne K.
that [ICWA] did not apply, was incorrect, and [he] d[idn’t] intend to revisit the issue.” Thus a jury trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6521 - 2005-03-31
that [ICWA] did not apply, was incorrect, and [he] d[idn’t] intend to revisit the issue.” Thus a jury trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6521 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
asserts the testimony did not establish adverse possession and the evidence did not support the court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32907 - 2008-06-02
asserts the testimony did not establish adverse possession and the evidence did not support the court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32907 - 2008-06-02
[PDF]
State v. Richard V. Stiglitz
2 The trial court did not expressly say that Stiglitz had made a prima facie showing. However
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2842 - 2017-09-19
2 The trial court did not expressly say that Stiglitz had made a prima facie showing. However
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2842 - 2017-09-19
State v. Ivan L. Higginbotham, Jr.
his request to represent himself was knowing and voluntary. Because the record shows Higginbotham did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6895 - 2005-03-31
his request to represent himself was knowing and voluntary. Because the record shows Higginbotham did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6895 - 2005-03-31