Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 21791 - 21800 of 83436 for case code.
Search results 21791 - 21800 of 83436 for case code.
State v. Rodrigo Rodriguez
Ultimately the two cases were tried together.[1] A state drug agent testified that he had arrested Rodriguez
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6893 - 2005-03-31
Ultimately the two cases were tried together.[1] A state drug agent testified that he had arrested Rodriguez
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6893 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. The case proceeded to a one-day jury trial. ¶4 Voir dire began the morning of trial. At the end
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=137823 - 2017-09-21
. The case proceeded to a one-day jury trial. ¶4 Voir dire began the morning of trial. At the end
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=137823 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
answer due on April 14. Caterpillar instead petitioned to remove the case to federal court on March 30
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=117398 - 2014-07-21
answer due on April 14. Caterpillar instead petitioned to remove the case to federal court on March 30
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=117398 - 2014-07-21
State v. Dean H. Cutsforth
would result in destruction of evidence. Id. ¶18 Cutsforth argues that the police in his case were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3543 - 2005-03-31
would result in destruction of evidence. Id. ¶18 Cutsforth argues that the police in his case were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3543 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
petitioned to remove the case to federal court on March 30, and filed its answer there. After Parker
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=117398 - 2017-09-21
petitioned to remove the case to federal court on March 30, and filed its answer there. After Parker
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=117398 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
, on or before 10/27/2008 by Plaintiff[,] 12/1/08 by Defendant[.] While the case was pending, Simandl
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=50325 - 2014-09-15
, on or before 10/27/2008 by Plaintiff[,] 12/1/08 by Defendant[.] While the case was pending, Simandl
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=50325 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
distinction between Liebnitz and Fowler’s case is that in Liebnitz the circuit court personally engaged
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=190581 - 2017-09-21
distinction between Liebnitz and Fowler’s case is that in Liebnitz the circuit court personally engaged
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=190581 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Paul R. Sharpley, Jr. v. Paul R. Sharpley III
2002 WI App 201 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 01-2167
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4291 - 2017-09-19
2002 WI App 201 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 01-2167
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4291 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
evaluation. Yvette’s attorney indicated that she could not proceed with the case without Yvette present
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=86080 - 2014-09-15
evaluation. Yvette’s attorney indicated that she could not proceed with the case without Yvette present
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=86080 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 The facts in this case are undisputed. In November 1995, Melchert was cited
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=338832 - 2021-02-24
affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 The facts in this case are undisputed. In November 1995, Melchert was cited
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=338832 - 2021-02-24