Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 28921 - 28930 of 60453 for two.

State v. Russell B. Mott
penalty of two years’ incarceration and some extended supervision. We reject Mott’s contentions. ¶12
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25286 - 2006-05-30

Timothy Wrase v. City of Neenah
Winnebago. They subsequently developed and sold off approximately two-thirds of the property. They kept
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13316 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] LaDon Larson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company
and headaches. They moved out, believing the WP-1 to be the cause of their illness. Two separate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21662 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Donald W. Burchfield
on probation after his convictions on two felony drug charges. The DOC initiated probation revocation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15267 - 2017-09-21

Heidi Lyn Cvicker v. Stephen Donald Cvicker
reduction in his income. Although Stephen was considered for two jobs that paid $40,000 annually, he chose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13581 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
was insufficient to prove two of the three elements of criminal contempt—that he had the ability to comply
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=86804 - 2012-09-11

Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Keith E. Halverson
in April 1999 for failing to keep two clients informed of the status of their legal matters and respond
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16368 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
was there … [and] was one of two primary actors.” The court also considered the impact of the crime on the victim, noting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34136 - 2008-09-29

[PDF] NOTICE
there is a rebuttable presumption of substantial risk of great bodily harm if the victim is sixty-two years of age
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35970 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] CA Blank Order
hearing on both injunction petitions was scheduled for June 4, 2024. In each case, two certificates
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1033481 - 2025-11-04