Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 27071 - 27080 of 46087 for paternity test paper work.

[PDF] State v. Damone J. Block
concedes that the persistent repeater statute deserves only the rational basis test. He argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13243 - 2017-09-21

State v. Francis E. Altman
The prejudice prong of the Strickland test is satisfied where the attorney’s error is of such magnitude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26043 - 2006-07-31

Halquist Stone Company, Inc. v. Town of Brothertown Planning and Zoning Committee
test to determine whether the evidence is sufficient. See Clark, 186 Wis.2d at 304, 519 N.W.2d at 784
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12029 - 2005-03-31

State v. Michael Marks
with prejudice under the test set forth in State v. Davis, 2001 WI 136, 248 Wis. 2d 986, 637 N.W.2d 62. He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6725 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] NOTICE
of the vehicle’s passengers was the defendant, Mellum. ¶5 The officer performed field sobriety tests
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33426 - 2014-09-15

CA Blank Order
179, ¶8, 322 Wis. 2d 576, 778 N.W.2d 157. The trial court applied the correct objective legal test
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102778 - 2012-12-17

[PDF] Valley Bank v. David V. Jennings III
, the bank's summary of Jennings's objections overlooked that the test for leave to file an amended complaint
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8337 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] CA Blank Order
. The admissibility of other-acts evidence is determined by using a three-step test: (1) whether the evidence
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=245067 - 2019-08-14

State v. Norman D. Stapleton
prongs of the test, and a reviewing court need not address both prongs if the defendant fails to make
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2597 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Jeffrey P. Williamson
test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2731 - 2017-09-19