Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 18821 - 18830 of 68530 for did.
Search results 18821 - 18830 of 68530 for did.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion because it did not believe that Uitz
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=88170 - 2014-09-15
court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion because it did not believe that Uitz
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=88170 - 2014-09-15
Jesus Barbary v. James R. Sturm
an initial determination that the evidence available did not establish misconduct and held him eligible
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10989 - 2005-03-31
an initial determination that the evidence available did not establish misconduct and held him eligible
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10989 - 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
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
properly granted the State’s motions in limine, to which the defense did not object. Second, during jury
/ca/opinion/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/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=724830 - 2023-11-07
[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
County of Jefferson v. Dale W. Prout
County Deputy Sheriff did not have probable cause to require Prout to submit to a preliminary breath test
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7601 - 2005-03-31
County Deputy Sheriff did not have probable cause to require Prout to submit to a preliminary breath test
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7601 - 2005-03-31
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
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
[PDF]
Mark Price v. Gary R. McCaughtry
on the label did not render it improper and there is no factual basis for concluding the chain of evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2675 - 2017-09-19
on the label did not render it improper and there is no factual basis for concluding the chain of evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2675 - 2017-09-19
Village of Barneveld v. William R. Stonestreet
by probable cause. However, because the officer did have probable cause to arrest Stonestreet, prior
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12803 - 2005-03-31
by probable cause. However, because the officer did have probable cause to arrest Stonestreet, prior
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12803 - 2005-03-31