Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 29581 - 29590 of 98489 for civil court case status online.
Search results 29581 - 29590 of 98489 for civil court case status online.
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 15, 2010 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52020 - 2010-07-14
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 15, 2010 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52020 - 2010-07-14
COURT OF APPEALS
court did not find the allegation that the secretary had to bribe counsel into working on Perkins’ case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30890 - 2007-11-14
court did not find the allegation that the secretary had to bribe counsel into working on Perkins’ case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30890 - 2007-11-14
COURT OF APPEALS
but on an imposed and stayed sentence in the other case. The court stated that Ash’s behavior was assaultive
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85979 - 2012-08-14
but on an imposed and stayed sentence in the other case. The court stated that Ash’s behavior was assaultive
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85979 - 2012-08-14
COURT OF APPEALS
influence [her] in [the] case?” After Bell answered “[n]o” to the court’s question, no further questions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=73239 - 2011-11-02
influence [her] in [the] case?” After Bell answered “[n]o” to the court’s question, no further questions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=73239 - 2011-11-02
COURT OF APPEALS
The challenged ruling in this case arises following the trial court’s decision on a summary judgment motion. Our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=38744 - 2009-08-03
The challenged ruling in this case arises following the trial court’s decision on a summary judgment motion. Our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=38744 - 2009-08-03
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED June 9, 2009 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36732 - 2009-06-08
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED June 9, 2009 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36732 - 2009-06-08
COURT OF APPEALS
inapplicable. Additionally, the supreme court has indicated that those cases are still helpful in analyzing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88073 - 2012-10-10
inapplicable. Additionally, the supreme court has indicated that those cases are still helpful in analyzing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88073 - 2012-10-10
COURT OF APPEALS
] In this operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) case, the State appeals the circuit court’s suppression
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131971 - 2014-12-22
] In this operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) case, the State appeals the circuit court’s suppression
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131971 - 2014-12-22
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 26, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31936 - 2008-02-25
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 26, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31936 - 2008-02-25
COURT OF APPEALS
the residual hearsay exception. In this case, the trial court did not consider the admissibility of the out
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=48654 - 2010-04-05
the residual hearsay exception. In this case, the trial court did not consider the admissibility of the out
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=48654 - 2010-04-05