Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 29851 - 29860 of 65932 for divorce records/1000.

State v. Kevin L. McCullough
that are of record or that are reasonably inferred from the record and a conclusion based on a logical rationale
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19807 - 2005-10-03

[PDF] Tony Chaney v. Rudy Renteria
of adjustment segregation is eight days but nonetheless chose to rely on records which erroneously stated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8142 - 2017-09-19

Dane County Department of Human Services v. Frederick L. E.
, and that the record did not support a conclusion that the parent’s consent met that test. We agree
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15876 - 2005-03-31

2010 WI APP 75
to deny her rights, nor cites to the provisions in the record.[3] She merely asserts the various rights
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50337 - 2011-08-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
, and attorneys). We may take judicial notice of CCAP records. Id. No. 2025AP177 4 was advised
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=946231 - 2025-04-22

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
, rather than her initials. 3 Although there is some discrepancy in the record as to whether Tiffany
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=452956 - 2021-11-12

[PDF] State v. Keith Love
reviewed the record, and has considered both counsel’s no merit report and Love’s response. Because we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13945 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Kelly K. Koopmans
again denied the motion, concluding that the statement as recorded by Rhinehart had been disclosed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8098 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Donald A. Thompson v. Lacrosse County Board of Adjustment
further evidence or allow the record to be supplemented to show that the Board refused to reconsider its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8062 - 2017-09-19

State v. Larry L. Howard
, as the state points out, “the original of the photo array is not in the appellate record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18442 - 2005-06-06