Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2931 - 2940 of 20932 for word.
Search results 2931 - 2940 of 20932 for word.
State v. Jason R. Sigmon
was incorrect in two respects. First, the adequacy of a plea colloquy is judged by the words of the colloquy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21071 - 2006-01-25
was incorrect in two respects. First, the adequacy of a plea colloquy is judged by the words of the colloquy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21071 - 2006-01-25
[PDF]
State v. Ryan E. Baker
... shall be applied to the payment of the judgment.” Section 969.02(6). “[T]he word ‘shall’ is presumed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7347 - 2017-09-20
... shall be applied to the payment of the judgment.” Section 969.02(6). “[T]he word ‘shall’ is presumed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7347 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
NOTICE
standard, however, is a suggestion that we ignore the word “necessary,” which is expressly included
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=50286 - 2014-09-15
standard, however, is a suggestion that we ignore the word “necessary,” which is expressly included
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=50286 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Kelly K. Koopmans
" is mandatory. ¶11 The word "shall," when used in a statute, is presumed to be mandatory unless another
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16969 - 2017-09-21
" is mandatory. ¶11 The word "shall," when used in a statute, is presumed to be mandatory unless another
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16969 - 2017-09-21
Molly K. Borreson v. Craig J. Yunto
and unreasonably denied the petitioner” physical placement.[3] The use of the word “shall” generally indicates
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24570 - 2006-04-25
and unreasonably denied the petitioner” physical placement.[3] The use of the word “shall” generally indicates
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24570 - 2006-04-25
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
or parents … of the information specified under sub. (1). In other words, § 48.356(2) requires any written
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=142876 - 2017-09-21
or parents … of the information specified under sub. (1). In other words, § 48.356(2) requires any written
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=142876 - 2017-09-21
2009 WI APP 119
of these provisions, “[c]ourts should give priority to the plain meaning of the words of [the] provision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=37172 - 2009-08-25
of these provisions, “[c]ourts should give priority to the plain meaning of the words of [the] provision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=37172 - 2009-08-25
State v. Ryan E. Baker
]he word ‘shall’ is presumed mandatory when it appears in a statute.” In re Commitment of Elizabeth
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7346 - 2005-03-31
]he word ‘shall’ is presumed mandatory when it appears in a statute.” In re Commitment of Elizabeth
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7346 - 2005-03-31
State v. Ryan E. Baker
]he word ‘shall’ is presumed mandatory when it appears in a statute.” In re Commitment of Elizabeth
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7347 - 2005-03-31
]he word ‘shall’ is presumed mandatory when it appears in a statute.” In re Commitment of Elizabeth
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7347 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the words in the statute themselves, but also from the context in which they are used. Id. Further, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=220313 - 2018-10-02
the words in the statute themselves, but also from the context in which they are used. Id. Further, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=220313 - 2018-10-02