Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 31141 - 31150 of 69439 for as he.

State v. John H. Maclin
. He contends the court lost the authority to order restitution because the State failed to file its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19379 - 2005-08-22

State v. Richard J. Wooster
count of child enticement, contrary to §§ 948.02(1), 948.05(1), and 948.07(1), Stats. He also appeals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8229 - 2005-03-31

William J. Evers v. Andrew Matson
dropped to “minimum” from medium, because he had an internal “HSU facility only” designation,[1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11181 - 2005-03-31

State v. Raymond F. Gose
motion. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a new trial after
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10526 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 10, 2007 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of A...
a judgment affirming the assessed value of his property in the Town of Cedarburg. He argues that his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27663 - 2007-01-09

[PDF] CA Blank Order
. The last-minute change in recommendation caused Jackson stress because he had prepared for the hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=920790 - 2025-02-27

COURT OF APPEALS
finalized about two weeks before the hearing, and he informed Hanson that he had excluded accounts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31429 - 2008-01-09

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
was based on contact Slies had with a person he was prohibited from contacting. He argues that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=162157 - 2017-09-21

State v. Brent A. Graziano
: john r. race, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 ANDERSON, P.J.[1] Brent A. Graziano contends that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19416 - 2005-08-30

Nate A. Lindell v. Matthew Frank
First Amendment rights; the rules under which he was charged are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26482 - 2006-09-13