Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1921 - 1930 of 68466 for did.
Search results 1921 - 1930 of 68466 for did.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the blood, which Howard did. The State subsequently amended the homicide charge against Howard to first
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=760112 - 2024-02-06
the blood, which Howard did. The State subsequently amended the homicide charge against Howard to first
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=760112 - 2024-02-06
Lester Bowen v. Village of Curtiss
was: “Did the Village of Curtiss intentionally remove the sign post belonging to Lester Bowen?” The jury
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3000 - 2005-03-31
was: “Did the Village of Curtiss intentionally remove the sign post belonging to Lester Bowen?” The jury
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3000 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
did not raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel issues. We disagree. Rather, Rogers
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=138975 - 2015-04-07
did not raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel issues. We disagree. Rather, Rogers
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=138975 - 2015-04-07
State v. Maurice S. Ewing
an apartment on Monterey, but did not know the apartment number. Ewing stated that on May 5 he had worked
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19333 - 2005-09-19
an apartment on Monterey, but did not know the apartment number. Ewing stated that on May 5 he had worked
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19333 - 2005-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
confession. At the hearing on the motion, both detectives testified that they did not recall Saeger saying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=53089 - 2010-08-10
confession. At the hearing on the motion, both detectives testified that they did not recall Saeger saying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=53089 - 2010-08-10
[PDF]
Lester Bowen v. Village of Curtiss
, the first of which was: “Did the Village of Curtiss intentionally remove the sign post belonging
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3000 - 2017-09-19
, the first of which was: “Did the Village of Curtiss intentionally remove the sign post belonging
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3000 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
NOTICE
to you.” Detective Haines testified at the suppression hearing that he did not say or do anything
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=56726 - 2014-09-15
to you.” Detective Haines testified at the suppression hearing that he did not say or do anything
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=56726 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
did not remove the radar/laser system from the automobile. After the police department completed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45732 - 2014-09-15
did not remove the radar/laser system from the automobile. After the police department completed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45732 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
to talk to you.” Detective Haines testified at the suppression hearing that he did not say or do anything
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56726 - 2010-11-16
to talk to you.” Detective Haines testified at the suppression hearing that he did not say or do anything
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56726 - 2010-11-16
COURT OF APPEALS
court’s colloquy was defective because the court did not discuss with her the potential dispositional
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=76202 - 2012-01-10
court’s colloquy was defective because the court did not discuss with her the potential dispositional
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=76202 - 2012-01-10