Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 30781 - 30790 of 61999 for child support.

Mack J. Holt, Jr. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh
playing basketball.[1] The YMCA argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12692 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
is discretionary. However, he fails to engage with that standard in any meaningful way to support his argument
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=773400 - 2024-03-07

Melanie O'Kane v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
supports LIRC’s findings of fact concerning O’Kane’s job performance. We review LIRC’s decision directly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7166 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
the stop, Cummins “was not a licensed driver,” giving Erickson specific and articulable facts to support
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=624226 - 2023-02-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
with F.E.K. about the Community Support Program, and that “[F.E.K.] could see that those are things
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=140986 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] CA Blank Order
reasoning: To suggest that this Court unknowingly overlooked “new factors” is not remotely supported
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315230 - 2020-12-16

[PDF] State v. Corrine L. Brazee
that Morrissey was an unpublished decision, but observes that an unpublished opinion may be cited to support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4086 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] Marathon County v. Terry R.H.
determination, he does not present a fully developed legal argument. He states but does not support his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12794 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS
relief. He argues the evidence was insufficient to support a determination that he was “dangerous
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=81880 - 2012-04-30

James R. Kersten v. Board of Adjustment of the Town of Fulton
it. The appellants also argue that the board's decision was supported by "nothing" in the record. We apply
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10231 - 2005-03-31