Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2061 - 2070 of 82617 for order for a biological sample for drug testing.
Search results 2061 - 2070 of 82617 for order for a biological sample for drug testing.
[PDF]
NOTICE
evidence had been DNA tested. We disagree and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND ¶2 After the State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36107 - 2014-09-15
evidence had been DNA tested. We disagree and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND ¶2 After the State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36107 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
when it limited inquiry into whether the physical evidence had been DNA tested. We disagree and affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36107 - 2009-04-06
when it limited inquiry into whether the physical evidence had been DNA tested. We disagree and affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36107 - 2009-04-06
COURT OF APPEALS
, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Rock
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29887 - 2007-08-01
, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Rock
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29887 - 2007-08-01
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
already given a DNA sample and been ordered to pay a surcharge due to a prior conviction. We concluded
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194586 - 2017-09-21
already given a DNA sample and been ordered to pay a surcharge due to a prior conviction. We concluded
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194586 - 2017-09-21
Victoria Jocius v. Mark Jocius
appeals the trial court’s order, following a hearing, that denied him any periods of physical placement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11475 - 2005-03-31
appeals the trial court’s order, following a hearing, that denied him any periods of physical placement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11475 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Victoria Jocius v. Mark Jocius
in the trial court’s order is its view that applying the best interests of a child test permits what
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11475 - 2017-09-19
in the trial court’s order is its view that applying the best interests of a child test permits what
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11475 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
to a blood test did not comport with the statutory requirements and therefore suppression of the evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=138978 - 2015-04-07
to a blood test did not comport with the statutory requirements and therefore suppression of the evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=138978 - 2015-04-07
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
an arrest for OWI and a refusal to submit to a blood test did not comport with the statutory requirements
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=138978 - 2017-09-21
an arrest for OWI and a refusal to submit to a blood test did not comport with the statutory requirements
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=138978 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
the circuit court’s order for summary judgment in favor of Hintz’s biological children in this dispute over
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29369 - 2007-06-13
the circuit court’s order for summary judgment in favor of Hintz’s biological children in this dispute over
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29369 - 2007-06-13
State v. Kathleen A. Krogman
of the instant offense; and (3) evidence of a blood test was admitted without proper foundation testimony. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14367 - 2005-03-31
of the instant offense; and (3) evidence of a blood test was admitted without proper foundation testimony. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14367 - 2005-03-31