Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 30641 - 30650 of 58492 for speedy trial.

COURT OF APPEALS
On July 26, 2005, the court conducted a trial on Petty’s physical placement petition. By operation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28730 - 2007-04-16

Frank Murphy v. Bruno Independent Living Aids
interfered with any contract between the parties. The trial court agreed and granted the motion for summary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4144 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Ontario D. Lowery
and remand for a new trial.1 Background ¶2 On January 9, 2001, Ontario Lowery and Jamus Reed were driving
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4432 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Marlene Brown v. David G. Dibbell, M.D.
was contributorily negligent. Dibbell cross-appeals, asserting that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12800 - 2017-09-21

State v. Ervin Burris
37, 39 (Ct. App. 1991); and even in cases where the trial court fails to adequately state the reasons
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13204 - 2005-03-31

Sheri Gould v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
of Monicken's incapacity, we reverse the part of the court of appeals' decision remanding the case to the trial
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16892 - 2005-03-31

Badger III Limited Partnership v. Howard
, Tammen & Bergendoff, a tenant in that building. The trial court granted summary judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8135 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
; and (4) a new trial is warranted in the interests of justice because the real controversy was not fully
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=576964 - 2022-10-12

John E. Schmidt (dismissed) v. City of Kenosha
culminated in the ordinance. We agree with the trial court, however, that the statute is a valid exercise
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11289 - 2005-03-31

Robert G. Morris v. State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation
by sending them by certified mail to his attorney. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4901 - 2005-03-31