Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 26191 - 26200 of 44730 for part.
Search results 26191 - 26200 of 44730 for part.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. As part of the plea colloquy, the circuit court drew Brown’s attention to the plea questionnaire
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=218890 - 2018-09-12
. As part of the plea colloquy, the circuit court drew Brown’s attention to the plea questionnaire
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=218890 - 2018-09-12
[PDF]
State v. Devon L. Telfered
while he was holding it. ¶4 At trial, the State relied in substantial part on Telfered’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6798 - 2017-09-20
while he was holding it. ¶4 At trial, the State relied in substantial part on Telfered’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6798 - 2017-09-20
Linda LaBerge v. Arthur LaBerge
that the trial court applied this standard in reaching its conclusion. The trial court stated in pertinent part
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9851 - 2005-03-31
that the trial court applied this standard in reaching its conclusion. The trial court stated in pertinent part
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9851 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
” on his part as an attempt to shift blame to the victim; the court misinterpreted character letters
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=927357 - 2025-03-18
” on his part as an attempt to shift blame to the victim; the court misinterpreted character letters
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=927357 - 2025-03-18
COURT OF APPEALS
pursuant to Waukesha County Circuit Court Rule 3.1 and Wis. Stat. § 806.02(5). Rule 3.1 provides in part
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34673 - 2008-11-25
pursuant to Waukesha County Circuit Court Rule 3.1 and Wis. Stat. § 806.02(5). Rule 3.1 provides in part
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34673 - 2008-11-25
COURT OF APPEALS
by employing a two-part inquiry in which we uphold a trial court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=138435 - 2015-03-31
by employing a two-part inquiry in which we uphold a trial court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=138435 - 2015-03-31
State v. Curtis L. Golston
of uncertainty for a degree of certainty in terms of the proceedings' outcome. As part of that exchange, he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10483 - 2005-03-31
of uncertainty for a degree of certainty in terms of the proceedings' outcome. As part of that exchange, he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10483 - 2005-03-31
State v. Mitchell A. Johnson
in pertinent part as follows: Based upon my conversations with Mr. Johnson, we have a preliminary hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19963 - 2005-10-17
in pertinent part as follows: Based upon my conversations with Mr. Johnson, we have a preliminary hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19963 - 2005-10-17
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
, and in particular, saliva testing on a bite mark. His claims are based in part on his allegation that trial
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=93770 - 2014-09-15
, and in particular, saliva testing on a bite mark. His claims are based in part on his allegation that trial
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=93770 - 2014-09-15
Diane L. Guse v. Ronald C. Guse
, at least in part, based on anticipated events. However, no evidence was introduced as to those events
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9216 - 2005-03-31
, at least in part, based on anticipated events. However, no evidence was introduced as to those events
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9216 - 2005-03-31