Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 27751 - 27760 of 64042 for records/1000.
Search results 27751 - 27760 of 64042 for records/1000.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
proceedings as to the amount—it is unclear from the record how the circuit court arrived at the amount
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=90981 - 2014-09-15
proceedings as to the amount—it is unclear from the record how the circuit court arrived at the amount
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=90981 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
electronically recorded phone calls. This part of the motion was not decided in the circuit court’s initial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=121168 - 2014-09-15
electronically recorded phone calls. This part of the motion was not decided in the circuit court’s initial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=121168 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary No. 2017AP1553-CR
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=213185 - 2018-05-23
and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary No. 2017AP1553-CR
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=213185 - 2018-05-23
[PDF]
State v. Joseph Allen Hopkins
substantial reason not to do so and states the reason on the record. Restitution ordered under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7785 - 2017-09-19
substantial reason not to do so and states the reason on the record. Restitution ordered under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7785 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Frontsheet
and the court remarked they had not received the affidavit. Electronic court records did not show a record
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=115776 - 2017-09-21
and the court remarked they had not received the affidavit. Electronic court records did not show a record
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=115776 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the contract. To the contrary, the jury found that Phenco did not breach the contract. Further, the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=64767 - 2014-09-15
the contract. To the contrary, the jury found that Phenco did not breach the contract. Further, the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=64767 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
, a recording of a 911 call. The Davis court stated: Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34813 - 2008-12-08
, a recording of a 911 call. The Davis court stated: Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34813 - 2008-12-08
COURT OF APPEALS
and not under arrest. The interview was recorded. The officer also read Tolonen Miranda warnings,[1] saying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=61400 - 2011-03-22
and not under arrest. The interview was recorded. The officer also read Tolonen Miranda warnings,[1] saying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=61400 - 2011-03-22
State v. Confucius Gooden
of substantial prior record, and the facts of this case, that five years is an appropriate, ah, sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11869 - 2005-03-31
of substantial prior record, and the facts of this case, that five years is an appropriate, ah, sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11869 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
of Highshaw’s electronically recorded phone calls. This part of the motion was not decided in the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121168 - 2014-09-08
of Highshaw’s electronically recorded phone calls. This part of the motion was not decided in the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121168 - 2014-09-08