Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 22401 - 22410 of 68347 for did.
Search results 22401 - 22410 of 68347 for did.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 19, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of ...
, concluding that § 66.0413 did not apply to billboards because subsec. (1)(b) addresses buildings “unfit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27478 - 2006-12-18
, concluding that § 66.0413 did not apply to billboards because subsec. (1)(b) addresses buildings “unfit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27478 - 2006-12-18
COURT OF APPEALS
p.m. to 1:30 a.m., but, she testified, she did not feel drunk. She also contradicted some details
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31751 - 2008-02-06
p.m. to 1:30 a.m., but, she testified, she did not feel drunk. She also contradicted some details
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31751 - 2008-02-06
COURT OF APPEALS
testified at the postconviction hearing that he did not understand anything about the plea agreement. He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=95554 - 2013-04-15
testified at the postconviction hearing that he did not understand anything about the plea agreement. He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=95554 - 2013-04-15
[PDF]
State v. J.T. Jones-Johnson
and that the victim’s No. 98-2894-CR 2 postconviction testimony that she did not want Jones-Johnson to go
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14601 - 2017-09-21
and that the victim’s No. 98-2894-CR 2 postconviction testimony that she did not want Jones-Johnson to go
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14601 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
and was, therefore, unlawful. ¶3 At the suppression hearing, Jones testified, as did officers Dustin Frank
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101950 - 2013-09-16
and was, therefore, unlawful. ¶3 At the suppression hearing, Jones testified, as did officers Dustin Frank
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101950 - 2013-09-16
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the October 31, 2022 deadline by one day. Jurjens argues that he did not miss the deadline because
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=835486 - 2024-08-08
the October 31, 2022 deadline by one day. Jurjens argues that he did not miss the deadline because
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=835486 - 2024-08-08
COURT OF APPEALS
by the Proposal Letter and said Commitment Letters. ¶3 Cape did not promptly sign and deliver
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=63801 - 2011-05-10
by the Proposal Letter and said Commitment Letters. ¶3 Cape did not promptly sign and deliver
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=63801 - 2011-05-10
2010 WI APP 119
, but argues the circuit court did not have the authority to exempt it from future taxes. We agree. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52222 - 2010-08-24
, but argues the circuit court did not have the authority to exempt it from future taxes. We agree. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52222 - 2010-08-24
COURT OF APPEALS
the Tadisches had breached the agreement when they “did not follow through with the farm transfer starting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=105160 - 2013-12-09
the Tadisches had breached the agreement when they “did not follow through with the farm transfer starting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=105160 - 2013-12-09
CA Blank Order
answered “yes.” However, the court did not define sexual contact or tell Garcia that the State would have
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=91455 - 2013-01-15
answered “yes.” However, the court did not define sexual contact or tell Garcia that the State would have
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=91455 - 2013-01-15