Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 30571 - 30580 of 63485 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 30571 - 30580 of 63485 for Motion for joint custody.
State v. Michael J. W.
. The trial court denied the motion because it found a question of fact was raised by Michael’s averment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9857 - 2005-03-31
. The trial court denied the motion because it found a question of fact was raised by Michael’s averment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9857 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Robert J. Defliger
a judgment convicting him of second-degree sexual assault. He also appeals an order denying his motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4277 - 2017-09-19
a judgment convicting him of second-degree sexual assault. He also appeals an order denying his motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4277 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Everardo A. Lopez
1 WISCONSIN STAT. § 948.02(1) provides: No. 00-3070-CR 2 postconviction motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3256 - 2017-09-19
1 WISCONSIN STAT. § 948.02(1) provides: No. 00-3070-CR 2 postconviction motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3256 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
addresses the trial court’s decision to grant the prosecution’s motion to admit other acts evidence
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=184792 - 2017-09-21
addresses the trial court’s decision to grant the prosecution’s motion to admit other acts evidence
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=184792 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Margaret Henkel v. William West, M.D.
to the Court on motion of either party after September 1, 1994. Nothing in this provision is intended
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15271 - 2017-09-21
to the Court on motion of either party after September 1, 1994. Nothing in this provision is intended
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15271 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Michael J. Whipp
as a repeater and from an order denying his postconviction motion for a new trial. We address the issues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12537 - 2017-09-21
as a repeater and from an order denying his postconviction motion for a new trial. We address the issues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12537 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
jumping. He also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion. Evans contends that: (1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=961929 - 2025-05-28
jumping. He also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion. Evans contends that: (1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=961929 - 2025-05-28
COURT OF APPEALS
the order denying his postconviction motion.[2] Hare argues that: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=117781 - 2014-07-28
the order denying his postconviction motion.[2] Hare argues that: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=117781 - 2014-07-28
[PDF]
Cathy R. Yahnke v. Larry V. Carson, M.D.
required of a surgeon. Therefore, granting Carson’s motion for summary judgment was error, and we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14968 - 2017-09-21
required of a surgeon. Therefore, granting Carson’s motion for summary judgment was error, and we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14968 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
), and from the order denying his postconviction motion. 2 Hare argues that: (1) his trial counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=117781 - 2017-09-21
), and from the order denying his postconviction motion. 2 Hare argues that: (1) his trial counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=117781 - 2017-09-21