Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 29551 - 29560 of 63559 for records.

GMAC Mortgage Corporation of Pennsylvania v. Michael Gisvold
, and there is no evidence in the record that Cudd and Claycomb were notified of the stipulation or amended order
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17122 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
court to apply the facts in the record to the correct legal standard and to reach a reasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=38623 - 2009-07-29

[PDF] State v. Gary R. Brunette
that the defendant must waive personally on the record, and Brunette did not do that. The State agrees
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12770 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Gary L. Addison v. Grant County
for the disputed property, which was recorded on June 2, 1988. The plaintiffs filed their complaint
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11021 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS
that ultimately it was not prejudicial to Nguyen. See id., 466 U.S. at 687. Here, our review of the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30931 - 2007-11-19

State v. James E. Gray
independently review the record to determine whether it provides a basis for the circuit court’s exercise
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17185 - 2005-03-31

Frontsheet
the defendant on the charge to which the defendant pled guilty.[4] ¶3 We conclude that the record clearly
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33125 - 2008-06-18

[PDF] WI 65
that the record clearly demonstrates that neither the State, nor trial defense counsel, nor the circuit court
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33125 - 2014-09-15

State v. Dennis E. Jones
for appellate review. This did not exhibit bias. Jones absolutely misrepresents the record when he contends
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11775 - 2005-03-31

Michael S.E. v. Shawn B.S.
him with medical records within ten days of the circuit court’s October 19, 2001 oral ruling
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5760 - 2005-03-31