Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 29271 - 29280 of 97586 for civil court case status online.
Search results 29271 - 29280 of 97586 for civil court case status online.
COURT OF APPEALS
in the dismissed case that was not before the circuit court in the suppression hearing in this case. To the extent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59341 - 2011-01-26
in the dismissed case that was not before the circuit court in the suppression hearing in this case. To the extent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59341 - 2011-01-26
COURT OF APPEALS
of the original complaint.”[3] The court also addressed some of the trial testimony in the case and concluded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=139718 - 2015-04-14
of the original complaint.”[3] The court also addressed some of the trial testimony in the case and concluded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=139718 - 2015-04-14
COURT OF APPEALS
. That was the situation in this case. We find none of the juvenile court’s projections to be unreasonable or based
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29037 - 2007-05-15
. That was the situation in this case. We find none of the juvenile court’s projections to be unreasonable or based
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29037 - 2007-05-15
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 13, 2013 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92707 - 2013-02-12
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 13, 2013 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92707 - 2013-02-12
COURT OF APPEALS
. The court added: “The propriety of summary judgment is determined case-by-case.” Id. Second, Steven V.’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55216 - 2010-10-06
. The court added: “The propriety of summary judgment is determined case-by-case.” Id. Second, Steven V.’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55216 - 2010-10-06
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 18, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=146392 - 2015-08-17
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 18, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=146392 - 2015-08-17
COURT OF APPEALS
” at Williams’s trial. Turner’s lawyer in the federal case told the trial court here: “When Mr. Turner started
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=113463 - 2014-06-02
” at Williams’s trial. Turner’s lawyer in the federal case told the trial court here: “When Mr. Turner started
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=113463 - 2014-06-02
COURT OF APPEALS
. At issue in this case is Brown’s contention that the trial court should have granted his postconviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=51174 - 2010-06-21
. At issue in this case is Brown’s contention that the trial court should have granted his postconviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=51174 - 2010-06-21
COURT OF APPEALS
conduct case. The State argues, and the circuit court agreed, that the evidence would have been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36411 - 2009-05-06
conduct case. The State argues, and the circuit court agreed, that the evidence would have been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36411 - 2009-05-06
COURT OF APPEALS
in this case. The court also found that the evidence was not unduly prejudicial. ¶16 We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56014 - 2010-10-27
in this case. The court also found that the evidence was not unduly prejudicial. ¶16 We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56014 - 2010-10-27