Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 21831 - 21840 of 97708 for court records search online.
Search results 21831 - 21840 of 97708 for court records search online.
COURT OF APPEALS
the two issues before the court. So, there is no law question involved here. We have reviewed the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34980 - 2008-12-22
the two issues before the court. So, there is no law question involved here. We have reviewed the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34980 - 2008-12-22
COURT OF APPEALS
division after considering one factor alone. The record must at least reflect the court’s consideration
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29704 - 2007-07-16
division after considering one factor alone. The record must at least reflect the court’s consideration
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29704 - 2007-07-16
COURT OF APPEALS
Here, the court stated on the record that it considered the statutory factors; it then read them
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36670 - 2009-06-01
Here, the court stated on the record that it considered the statutory factors; it then read them
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36670 - 2009-06-01
COURT OF APPEALS
to steal property and credit cards. The trial court also recognized that Daniels had a “bad record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=123855 - 2015-01-13
to steal property and credit cards. The trial court also recognized that Daniels had a “bad record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=123855 - 2015-01-13
COURT OF APPEALS
of unfitness under the statute is an undisputed court record.” Id., ¶39. We review de novo whether summary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=132014 - 2014-12-22
of unfitness under the statute is an undisputed court record.” Id., ¶39. We review de novo whether summary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=132014 - 2014-12-22
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 28, 2010 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52615 - 2010-07-27
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 28, 2010 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52615 - 2010-07-27
COURT OF APPEALS
misstates the record. The transcript of the sentencing hearing makes clear that the court acknowledged
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31761 - 2008-02-06
misstates the record. The transcript of the sentencing hearing makes clear that the court acknowledged
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31761 - 2008-02-06
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 21, 2010 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58078 - 2010-12-20
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 21, 2010 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58078 - 2010-12-20
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 2, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60429 - 2011-03-01
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 2, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60429 - 2011-03-01
COURT OF APPEALS
and states the reason on the record.” However, § 973.20(5)(a) limits the restitution a court may award
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59541 - 2011-01-31
and states the reason on the record.” However, § 973.20(5)(a) limits the restitution a court may award
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59541 - 2011-01-31