Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 28061 - 28070 of 64839 for timed.

Mark Alan Harvat v. Regina Anne Harvat
to that enjoyed during the marriage and the length of time necessary to achieve this goal, if the goal is feasible
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11817 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Carl E. Cunningham
to the trial judge at the time of sentencing, which operates to frustrate the purpose of the original
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6654 - 2017-09-20

Bruce A. Rumage v. Donald W. Gudmanson
served the State with a timely notice of claim. Nor did he move to amend his complaint or otherwise
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12011 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
for an extension of the time to file the brief, this appeal may be summarily reversed. On March 4, 2020, Kivisto
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=291854 - 2020-10-01

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
that correction to be made at any particular time. ¶3 Soto argues that neither he nor his advocate was provided
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=81185 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Scott D. Nash
on Nash’s plea, he did not timely seek relief under RULE 809.30, STATS. He takes this appeal from
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14652 - 2017-09-21

State v. Michael Modrow
was unreasonable because there was scant evidence that he had been drinking at the time of the offenses
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10220 - 2005-03-31

Ronald E. Patten v. David H. Schwarz
approve any referral to DIS. She stated several times, in several ways, that OOC had considered Patten
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13106 - 2005-03-31

State v. Matthew Belton
, which all could have been brought at the same time, run counter to the design and purpose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24981 - 2006-05-08

[PDF] Office of State Public Defender v. Circuit Court For Walworth County
for such appointed counsel? We agree that the statute was ambiguous as it read at the time of the circuit court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15795 - 2017-09-21