Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2941 - 2950 of 20860 for word.
Search results 2941 - 2950 of 20860 for word.
COURT OF APPEALS
“interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=47043 - 2010-02-16
“interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=47043 - 2010-02-16
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
alleged here is that you attempted to commit— THE DEFENDANT: Wording. I’m sorry, Your Honor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=208602 - 2018-02-21
alleged here is that you attempted to commit— THE DEFENDANT: Wording. I’m sorry, Your Honor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=208602 - 2018-02-21
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
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
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
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
by the return date; that the word “may” is permissive, not directory; and that Whitehead failed to provide any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=273945 - 2020-07-30
by the return date; that the word “may” is permissive, not directory; and that Whitehead failed to provide any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=273945 - 2020-07-30
State v. Stephen P. Gautschi
whether a defect is technical or fundamental, we look to the purpose of the statute, not just its wording
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16231 - 2005-03-31
whether a defect is technical or fundamental, we look to the purpose of the statute, not just its wording
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16231 - 2005-03-31
Neil S. Hubbard v. Shaun Messer
days prior to the date of such payment.” In other words, on any day when an employee earns a wage
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5406 - 2005-03-31
days prior to the date of such payment.” In other words, on any day when an employee earns a wage
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5406 - 2005-03-31
[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