Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 23811 - 23820 of 62101 for child support.
Search results 23811 - 23820 of 62101 for child support.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
preponderance of the evidence. The evidence supporting the findings of the [circuit] court need not in itself
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=174612 - 2017-09-21
preponderance of the evidence. The evidence supporting the findings of the [circuit] court need not in itself
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=174612 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
testimony to support his defense.3 The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=43576 - 2014-09-15
testimony to support his defense.3 The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=43576 - 2014-09-15
State v. Frank L. Little
produced at trial was insufficient to support a conviction and violated his due process rights.[2] We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7270 - 2005-03-31
produced at trial was insufficient to support a conviction and violated his due process rights.[2] We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7270 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
2 (2019-20).1 We agree that reasonable suspicion supported the investigatory stop
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=402470 - 2021-07-30
2 (2019-20).1 We agree that reasonable suspicion supported the investigatory stop
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=402470 - 2021-07-30
[PDF]
State v. Lornell Evans
. No. 00-2285-CR 4 ¶7 Evans argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2947 - 2017-09-19
. No. 00-2285-CR 4 ¶7 Evans argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2947 - 2017-09-19
State v. Jesse J. Schloemer
. At the evidentiary hearing, Knox gave the following testimony in support of his decision to stop Schloemer's vehicle
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9138 - 2005-03-31
. At the evidentiary hearing, Knox gave the following testimony in support of his decision to stop Schloemer's vehicle
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9138 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Based upon our review of the briefs and record
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=383056 - 2021-07-01
the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Based upon our review of the briefs and record
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=383056 - 2021-07-01
[PDF]
NOTICE
arrest was not supported by probable cause. At the motion hearing, Parker testified to the facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31637 - 2014-09-15
arrest was not supported by probable cause. At the motion hearing, Parker testified to the facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31637 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Jesse J. Schloemer
testimony in support of his decision to stop Schloemer's vehicle: I heard a vehicle traveling westbound
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9138 - 2017-09-19
testimony in support of his decision to stop Schloemer's vehicle: I heard a vehicle traveling westbound
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9138 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
there was insufficient evidence to support the orders. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 In 2012, after
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=176197 - 2017-09-21
there was insufficient evidence to support the orders. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 In 2012, after
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=176197 - 2017-09-21