Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 31291 - 31300 of 62338 for child support.
Search results 31291 - 31300 of 62338 for child support.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the witnesses as well as the video that was presented. All of the evidence overwhelmingly supported a finding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118308 - 2014-09-15
the witnesses as well as the video that was presented. All of the evidence overwhelmingly supported a finding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118308 - 2014-09-15
State v. Joseph M. Espinoza
agree with the circuit court that the obstruction charge is not supported by the information/allegations
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4029 - 2005-03-31
agree with the circuit court that the obstruction charge is not supported by the information/allegations
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4029 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
to the complaint, Blake’s statement, and affidavits in support of search warrants, Blake related that he invited
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34510 - 2014-09-15
to the complaint, Blake’s statement, and affidavits in support of search warrants, Blake related that he invited
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34510 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that a remand to present new evidence in support of revocation is “‘a second kick at the cat’” that violates
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=195182 - 2017-09-21
that a remand to present new evidence in support of revocation is “‘a second kick at the cat’” that violates
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=195182 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Suppression of Defendant’s Blood Test Result Based upon Unconstitutional
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121152 - 2015-01-25
in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Suppression of Defendant’s Blood Test Result Based upon Unconstitutional
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121152 - 2015-01-25
[PDF]
NOTICE
that they cite no direct support for their position that occasional public use is not “public use.” Rather
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=57071 - 2014-09-15
that they cite no direct support for their position that occasional public use is not “public use.” Rather
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=57071 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
theories to support its decision. First, the court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27926 - 2014-09-15
theories to support its decision. First, the court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27926 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
William Leach's parole. Because substantial evidence supports the Department's decision to revoke his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32356 - 2014-09-15
William Leach's parole. Because substantial evidence supports the Department's decision to revoke his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32356 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the historical facts were clearly erroneous. Indeed, there appears to be little in the way of record support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=198723 - 2017-10-24
the historical facts were clearly erroneous. Indeed, there appears to be little in the way of record support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=198723 - 2017-10-24
State v. Paul Alan LeRose
with the SPD and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because there was no direct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2420 - 2005-03-31
with the SPD and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because there was no direct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2420 - 2005-03-31