Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 19441 - 19450 of 59340 for quit claim deed.
Search results 19441 - 19450 of 59340 for quit claim deed.
[PDF]
Neil H. Caflisch v. Richard W. Cross
- substantial performance doctrine; (2) whether Caflisch proved his claims for contract additions under oral
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10363 - 2017-09-20
- substantial performance doctrine; (2) whether Caflisch proved his claims for contract additions under oral
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10363 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and that the trial court erred because it should have allowed Hummingbird to present evidence to support its claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=259967 - 2020-05-12
and that the trial court erred because it should have allowed Hummingbird to present evidence to support its claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=259967 - 2020-05-12
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
exercise of discretion. See id. I. Double Jeopardy/Multiplicity Ireland’s first claim of manifest
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=669025 - 2023-06-20
exercise of discretion. See id. I. Double Jeopardy/Multiplicity Ireland’s first claim of manifest
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=669025 - 2023-06-20
COURT OF APPEALS
motion. A jury found him guilty. He moved for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=64079 - 2011-05-17
motion. A jury found him guilty. He moved for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=64079 - 2011-05-17
State v. Floyd L. Marlow
. §§ 940.02(1), 939.63, 939.05 (1999–2000).[1] Marlow claims that the evidence was insufficient to support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6825 - 2005-03-31
. §§ 940.02(1), 939.63, 939.05 (1999–2000).[1] Marlow claims that the evidence was insufficient to support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6825 - 2005-03-31
State v. George H. Tutor
not have his reading glasses and that he could not read the two smudged tags he had. He claimed that only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3677 - 2005-03-31
not have his reading glasses and that he could not read the two smudged tags he had. He claimed that only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3677 - 2005-03-31
State v. Eric L. Small
not communicate with one another. There is thus no evidence to support Small’s claim that David’s conduct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14166 - 2005-03-31
not communicate with one another. There is thus no evidence to support Small’s claim that David’s conduct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14166 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
on appeal. He first claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) call a toxicologist
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=335496 - 2021-02-17
on appeal. He first claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) call a toxicologist
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=335496 - 2021-02-17
COURT OF APPEALS
plea and at sentencing. He also claims his sentence is an erroneous exercise of discretion. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34840 - 2008-12-09
plea and at sentencing. He also claims his sentence is an erroneous exercise of discretion. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34840 - 2008-12-09
Donald Geller v. Gerald Niedert
finding that their claim had no merit, or that they exercised bad faith in violating the order compelling
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9269 - 2005-03-31
finding that their claim had no merit, or that they exercised bad faith in violating the order compelling
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9269 - 2005-03-31