Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 29291 - 29300 of 59254 for SMALL CLAIMS.
Search results 29291 - 29300 of 59254 for SMALL CLAIMS.
[PDF]
State v. Michael L. Anderson
was proper. Anderson premises his claim of confusion on statements made by his trial attorney
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4599 - 2017-09-19
was proper. Anderson premises his claim of confusion on statements made by his trial attorney
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4599 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
order. She claims the order is void because her procedural due process rights were violated when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=232741 - 2019-01-15
order. She claims the order is void because her procedural due process rights were violated when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=232741 - 2019-01-15
State v. Christopher L. Ambort
(2003-04). His sole claim of error is that he was denied due process, specifically, notice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26093 - 2006-08-02
(2003-04). His sole claim of error is that he was denied due process, specifically, notice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26093 - 2006-08-02
COURT OF APPEALS
sentencing challenge on appeal to his claim that the trial court based its sentence on the mistaken premise
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=51410 - 2010-06-28
sentencing challenge on appeal to his claim that the trial court based its sentence on the mistaken premise
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=51410 - 2010-06-28
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
also appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief.1 On appeal, Elim claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=87379 - 2014-09-15
also appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief.1 On appeal, Elim claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=87379 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
sentences. Linderman contends this violated his right to be free from double jeopardy. He also claims he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=69580 - 2014-09-15
sentences. Linderman contends this violated his right to be free from double jeopardy. He also claims he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=69580 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Jerry Saenz v. John Husz
on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for monetary damages.2 We reject both contentions and affirm the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8599 - 2017-09-19
on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for monetary damages.2 We reject both contentions and affirm the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8599 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
this violated his right to be free from double jeopardy. He also claims he is entitled to sentence credit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69580 - 2011-08-15
this violated his right to be free from double jeopardy. He also claims he is entitled to sentence credit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69580 - 2011-08-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
(1984). To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant “must show that counsel’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=246228 - 2019-09-03
(1984). To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant “must show that counsel’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=246228 - 2019-09-03
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
limit. Kretman claimed the amended policy limit did not apply, and that the applicable limit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=360253 - 2021-04-27
limit. Kretman claimed the amended policy limit did not apply, and that the applicable limit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=360253 - 2021-04-27