Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 25381 - 25390 of 70139 for hi.
Search results 25381 - 25390 of 70139 for hi.
State v. John A. Lettice
with a person other than Lettice. Included with his written offer of proof was Koeppl's one-page report, which
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10249 - 2005-03-31
with a person other than Lettice. Included with his written offer of proof was Koeppl's one-page report, which
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10249 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
jumping. Raether appeals the judgment of conviction and the order denying his postconviction motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82768 - 2012-05-22
jumping. Raether appeals the judgment of conviction and the order denying his postconviction motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82768 - 2012-05-22
COURT OF APPEALS
the information and that he had to file the claim on his own. ¶3 On October 21, Weed’s doctor took him
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46796 - 2010-02-09
the information and that he had to file the claim on his own. ¶3 On October 21, Weed’s doctor took him
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46796 - 2010-02-09
COURT OF APPEALS
), third offense. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33305 - 2008-07-08
), third offense. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33305 - 2008-07-08
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
after his motion to suppress was denied.2 Newman argues that his suppression motion should have been
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=338362 - 2021-02-24
after his motion to suppress was denied.2 Newman argues that his suppression motion should have been
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=338362 - 2021-02-24
[PDF]
NOTICE
-appellant as “Sobjeck.” 2 In his notice of appeal, Sobjeck purports to appeal from “the final decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32974 - 2014-09-15
-appellant as “Sobjeck.” 2 In his notice of appeal, Sobjeck purports to appeal from “the final decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32974 - 2014-09-15
State v. Cornelius F.
BROWN, J.[1] While the appeal directly concerns a CHIPS[2] disposition relating to his four children
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5913 - 2005-03-31
BROWN, J.[1] While the appeal directly concerns a CHIPS[2] disposition relating to his four children
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5913 - 2005-03-31
State v. Cornelius F.
BROWN, J.[1] While the appeal directly concerns a CHIPS[2] disposition relating to his four children
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5914 - 2005-03-31
BROWN, J.[1] While the appeal directly concerns a CHIPS[2] disposition relating to his four children
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5914 - 2005-03-31
State v. Cornelius F.
BROWN, J.[1] While the appeal directly concerns a CHIPS[2] disposition relating to his four children
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5916 - 2005-03-31
BROWN, J.[1] While the appeal directly concerns a CHIPS[2] disposition relating to his four children
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5916 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
. The police directed him not to drive the vehicle until they determined his role in the alleged theft
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28690 - 2005-03-31
. The police directed him not to drive the vehicle until they determined his role in the alleged theft
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28690 - 2005-03-31