Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 30491 - 30500 of 62338 for child support.
Search results 30491 - 30500 of 62338 for child support.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the denial of the suppression motion was proper, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=905105 - 2025-01-28
stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the denial of the suppression motion was proper, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=905105 - 2025-01-28
State v. Toby J. Vandenberg
not support his contentions; rather, the record shows a proper basis for the court's sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13503 - 2005-03-31
not support his contentions; rather, the record shows a proper basis for the court's sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13503 - 2005-03-31
State v. Calvin Matthew
Alford plea. In support of the motion, the State explains that it believes the trial court erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9664 - 2005-03-31
Alford plea. In support of the motion, the State explains that it believes the trial court erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9664 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
inferences drawn by the court, and we search the record for evidence to support its findings. Global Steel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=812343 - 2024-06-12
inferences drawn by the court, and we search the record for evidence to support its findings. Global Steel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=812343 - 2024-06-12
[PDF]
State v. Gregory C. Kirst
, contrary to § 940.19(1), STATS. He argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9066 - 2017-09-19
, contrary to § 940.19(1), STATS. He argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9066 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the verdict, supports the jury’s decision. BACKGROUND ¶2 Steffek was charged with endangering safety
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=143711 - 2017-09-21
the verdict, supports the jury’s decision. BACKGROUND ¶2 Steffek was charged with endangering safety
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=143711 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Clifford J. Lennie
argument in support of the stop, stating only: NO. 97-0185-CR 3 I think [Office Baake
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11983 - 2017-09-21
argument in support of the stop, stating only: NO. 97-0185-CR 3 I think [Office Baake
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11983 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Thomas J. Enders v. Northwoods Inn
to support his argument, we affirm the judgment. ¶2 The facts are undisputed. The record discloses
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6411 - 2017-09-19
to support his argument, we affirm the judgment. ¶2 The facts are undisputed. The record discloses
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6411 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
on inaccurate information. In support of his claim, Lane argued, first, that the sentencing court’s remarks
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=99746 - 2014-09-15
on inaccurate information. In support of his claim, Lane argued, first, that the sentencing court’s remarks
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=99746 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
) (where decision on one ground is sufficient to support a judgment, others need not be discussed). ¶6
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32064 - 2008-03-10
) (where decision on one ground is sufficient to support a judgment, others need not be discussed). ¶6
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32064 - 2008-03-10