Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 30211 - 30220 of 57201 for id.

Wintz Companies v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
control over the means of transportation such as the vehicle to be used or the destination travelled. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8446 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
and by the appellant personally. See id. We are satisfied that we met our obligation in following the no-merit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44824 - 2009-12-21

COURT OF APPEALS
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. at 389-90. Moreover, “the fact finder’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44960 - 2009-12-22

State v. Mikkel J. Goff
). This is a discretionary determination due the deference we normally award evidentiary rulings. Id. at 399
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4169 - 2005-03-31

State v. Marlon Spears
that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11659 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
is not entitled to relief.” Id. Walter argued on direct appeal that Hill’s statement to the police should have
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=240869 - 2019-05-15

[PDF] CA Blank Order
it was then in existence, it was unknowingly overlooked by all of the parties.” Id., ¶¶40, 52 (citation omitted
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=131447 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Hutchinson Technology, Inc. v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
of the statute, even if we conclude that another interpretation is more reasonable. Id. ¶5 In this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5973 - 2017-09-19

Hutchinson Technology, Inc. v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
interpretation is more reasonable. Id. ¶5 In this case, LIRC concluded that Hutchinson
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5973 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
professional norms. Id. at 688. To prove prejudice, a “defendant must show that there is a reasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98006 - 2014-09-15