Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 19041 - 19050 of 27362 for ad.

State v. Rakhoda Amani Beni
entered in a voluntary and intelligent fashion.” (Emphasis added.) He also asserts: “Without being able
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18446 - 2005-06-06

State v. Rakhoda Amani Beni
entered in a voluntary and intelligent fashion.” (Emphasis added.) He also asserts: “Without being able
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18448 - 2005-06-06

State v. Julius L. Arberry
)(a), not § 941.29(2m) (emphasis added). This is a significant difference. When a defendant stipulates
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4320 - 2005-03-31

Bill's Distributing, Ltd. v. Gerald Cormican
. 2d at 135-36 (emphasis added). The statutory damages available under Wis. Stat. § 26.09 (1997-1998
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4413 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
as defamatory.” (Emphasis added.) None of these cases stands for the proposition that a defendant can lose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=817385 - 2024-06-25

[PDF] State v. Nicole O.
. The guardian ad litem for the children also urged the trial court to terminate Nicole O.’s parental rights
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7674 - 2017-09-19

Vonnie D. Darby v. Jon Litscher
be the remainder of the aggregate sentence. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the remainder of the aggregate sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5160 - 2005-03-31

State v. Roger S. Walker
. (Emphasis added.) ¶13 During trial, Walker did testify on his own behalf. During cross-examination
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3061 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
makes literally pennies per hour does not seem to make sense” and that “adding the burden of the huge
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=738916 - 2023-12-12

Carl H. Creedy v. Axley Brynelson
be admissible in evidence.” (Emphasis added.) Citing the statute, we said in Larson v. Kleist Builders, Ltd
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12295 - 2005-03-31