Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2951 - 2960 of 20860 for word.
Search results 2951 - 2960 of 20860 for word.
[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
[PDF]
Neil S. Hubbard v. Shaun Messer
prior to the date of such payment.” In other words, on any day when an employee earns a wage payment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5406 - 2017-09-19
prior to the date of such payment.” In other words, on any day when an employee earns a wage payment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5406 - 2017-09-19
City of Milwaukee v. Shirley A. Negley
defects actually violated the building code. The Negleys had written the words “don’t know” next
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11004 - 2005-03-31
defects actually violated the building code. The Negleys had written the words “don’t know” next
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11004 - 2005-03-31
State v. Dale Marek
of the word.[3] On June 23, 1994, following the three-day trial, the jury convicted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13409 - 2005-03-31
of the word.[3] On June 23, 1994, following the three-day trial, the jury convicted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13409 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
City of Milwaukee v. Clifford R. Negley
the words “don’t know” next to these requests. The trial court deemed the requests admitted because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11005 - 2017-09-19
the words “don’t know” next to these requests. The trial court deemed the requests admitted because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11005 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
correct and policing others’ words.”9 We are not persuaded that the terms are definitive enough
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1028555 - 2025-10-28
correct and policing others’ words.”9 We are not persuaded that the terms are definitive enough
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1028555 - 2025-10-28
[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