Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 18901 - 18910 of 68502 for did.
Search results 18901 - 18910 of 68502 for did.
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
Clark Anderson v. State
to the surgeries, he never had any injury to his mouth, and did not have any pain or clicking problems with his jaw
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8905 - 2005-03-31
to the surgeries, he never had any injury to his mouth, and did not have any pain or clicking problems with his jaw
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8905 - 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
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
about the situation. But [T.C.B.] don’t lie. Trial counsel did not object
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191689 - 2017-09-21
about the situation. But [T.C.B.] don’t lie. Trial counsel did not object
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191689 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that he did not have a defense of mistake to the victim intimidation charge. After an evidentiary
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=341462 - 2021-03-03
that he did not have a defense of mistake to the victim intimidation charge. After an evidentiary
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=341462 - 2021-03-03
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
did not address the seriousness of the charges or the general ranges of penalties for the charged
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=691522 - 2023-08-16
did not address the seriousness of the charges or the general ranges of penalties for the charged
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=691522 - 2023-08-16
State v. Peter J. Bartram
that because the State did not present any evidence at the motion hearing, the State failed to meet its burden
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15864 - 2005-03-31
that because the State did not present any evidence at the motion hearing, the State failed to meet its burden
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15864 - 2005-03-31