Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2341 - 2350 of 59797 for quit claim deed.

[PDF] State v. Donald D. Shampo
. He claims the trial court used the “manifest injustice” standard. To withdraw a plea after
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6071 - 2017-09-19

State v. Kevin D. Jennings
an order denying his postconviction motion. Jennings claims that the trial court erred when it failed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3647 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
and then voluntarily just decides to quit that because she wants to spend more time with grandchildren and children
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=934519 - 2025-04-02

COURT OF APPEALS
claim that the circuit court relied upon inaccurate information at his sentencing after revocation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98010 - 2013-06-11

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
Peterson’s probation revocation proceeding is necessary background for his claim that the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98010 - 2014-09-15

Dane County Department of Human Services v. Johnnie B.P.
to his six-year-old son, Brack. He claims that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2740 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Dane County Department of Human Services v. Johnnie B.P.
-year-old son, Brack. He claims that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in ordering
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2740 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] The Copps Corporation v. Labor & Industry Review Commission
-2171 3 that he left the store early, but claimed that he was doing work at home or visiting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15894 - 2017-09-21

The Copps Corporation v. Labor & Industry Review Commission
] Kertis did not deny that he left the store early, but claimed that he was doing work at home or visiting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15894 - 2005-03-31

Mary Alice Farnen v. John P. Farnen
the possibility of collusion was deemed quite low, if not nil, that "we hold that such clauses are not contrary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8898 - 2005-03-31