Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 21561 - 21570 of 68257 for law.

County of Jefferson v. David W. Demler II
conclude that it is based on facts in the record, applies the correct law, and is the product of a rational
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2694 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
Bulletin Notice, which also was distributed to law enforcement, requiring . . . [him] to comply
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=767912 - 2024-02-28

Lucy A. Goebel v. Henry S. Goebel
argument is that the trial court misstated the law concerning property division. Property division
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15137 - 2005-03-31

State v. John Lee Osgood, Sr.
argues that his conviction is invalid because § 940.225(1)(d) conflicts with federal law. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8012 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
holding on that legal issue would be law of the case and binding upon the Circuit Court.” We conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=514422 - 2022-04-28

[PDF] State v. Frederick B. Rogers
of the parties. Id. Whether a new factor exists presents a question of law, which the court of appeals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4316 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
should be denied because the costs sought were not recognized as recoverable costs under state law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107322 - 2017-09-21

State v. Derick D. Bostick
of balancing test required by the law. The court reasonably saw the risk that the “other acts” evidence might
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10569 - 2005-03-31

State v. Kevin D. Russo
convicting him as a habitual offender of battery to a law officer and the misdemeanor crimes of disorderly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26058 - 2006-08-01

[PDF] State v. James Stankiewicz
). The legality of the stop, however, is a question of law and is reviewed de novo by this court. See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10828 - 2017-09-20