Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 31301 - 31310 of 57152 for id.
Search results 31301 - 31310 of 57152 for id.
[PDF]
State v. Michael Mirr
for the circuit court’s exercise of discretion. See id. at 781, 576 N.W.2d at 36. A review reveals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14118 - 2014-09-15
for the circuit court’s exercise of discretion. See id. at 781, 576 N.W.2d at 36. A review reveals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14118 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Anthony Walker
to the time of the incident, it does not bear on the witness’s credibility. See id. at 354, 254 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11837 - 2017-09-21
to the time of the incident, it does not bear on the witness’s credibility. See id. at 354, 254 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11837 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
and that the circuit court actually relied on the inaccuracy. See id., ¶2. The defendant must make his case by clear
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93298 - 2013-02-25
and that the circuit court actually relied on the inaccuracy. See id., ¶2. The defendant must make his case by clear
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93298 - 2013-02-25
[PDF]
Ronald Waites v. Marianne Cooke
because he did not object to the removal of this venireperson. See id. at 392, 462 N.W.2d at 213
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10516 - 2017-09-20
because he did not object to the removal of this venireperson. See id. at 392, 462 N.W.2d at 213
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10516 - 2017-09-20
Rupert J. Loeffler v. Emma G. Loeffler
the procedural requirements or to point them to the proper substantive law. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9281 - 2005-03-31
the procedural requirements or to point them to the proper substantive law. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9281 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Paul Sappington
constitutes ineffective assistance is a mixed question of fact and law. See id. at ¶51. We will uphold
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16200 - 2017-09-21
constitutes ineffective assistance is a mixed question of fact and law. See id. at ¶51. We will uphold
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16200 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
“is totally unsupported by facts in the record and, therefore, is clearly erroneous.” See id., ¶29. Here
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=540670 - 2022-07-06
“is totally unsupported by facts in the record and, therefore, is clearly erroneous.” See id., ¶29. Here
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=540670 - 2022-07-06
State v. John R. Jagusch
may be had. Id. at 414, 86 N.W.2d at 448. To prove entrapment, the defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11783 - 2005-03-31
may be had. Id. at 414, 86 N.W.2d at 448. To prove entrapment, the defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11783 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
in the administrative process.” Id., ¶13. However, the presumption that the administrative remedy is exclusive “does
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35997 - 2014-09-15
in the administrative process.” Id., ¶13. However, the presumption that the administrative remedy is exclusive “does
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35997 - 2014-09-15
Alphonso Hubanks v. Gary R. McCaughtry
in the outcome. Id. at 694. Hubanks has not established ineffective assistance or prejudice from his trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13241 - 2005-03-31
in the outcome. Id. at 694. Hubanks has not established ineffective assistance or prejudice from his trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13241 - 2005-03-31