Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 27951 - 27960 of 56162 for so.

Frontsheet
to Minnesota Statutes § 169A.24.1(1). ¶2 On October 3, 2011, the parties executed a joint stipulation, so we
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=77946 - 2012-02-08

[PDF] State v. Roland A. Smart
the same period, it was within their discretion to do so. The guidelines are not mandatory, and a court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4996 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] NOTICE
with the new procedural requirement when there was amply opportunity to do so. No. 2006AP2391 6
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31680 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] CA Blank Order
sentence’” is not unduly harsh, and the sentence imposed here was not “‘so excessive and unusual and so
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194394 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] CA Blank Order
.2d 810. The court must determine, however, whether the defendant in fact consented and, if so
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=135021 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
, and by failing to seek an adjournment so that the defense could have time to review those cases prior
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=226578 - 2018-11-06

Margaret Smith v. Richard Golde
trial to Golde’s offers of proof so that he could not benefit from the passage of time and expand
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3931 - 2005-03-31

State v. Jerry W. Krueger
from a panic attack causing shortness of breath so that the person cannot produce a breath sample
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15755 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
. at 614-15. Here, the court rescheduled the hearing so McCoy could be present, and there is no prejudice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34993 - 2008-12-22

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
and, if so, prejudicial, are questions of law that we review de novo.” Id. ¶4 We need not address both
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=612475 - 2023-01-20