Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 31381 - 31390 of 51586 for Cost-effective treatments https://simplemedrx.top.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
, the individual is unable effectively to receive and evaluate information or to make or communicate decisions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=86244 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Demell V. Glenn
to confrontation because he was not able to effectively cross-examine Kaela. This argument is puzzling. Glenn
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2457 - 2017-09-19

C & B Investments v. Wisconsin Winnebago Health Department
756, 758-59 (Alaska 1983). To the same effect is Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Val-U Constr. Co., 50 F.3d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7705 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Ryan E. Brockman
not performed studies on the effects of alcohol on HGN, but tests his patients for nystagmus. Specialized
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9283 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS
effect” of those two errors prejudiced his defense. (Capitalization omitted.) ¶4 The circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=77606 - 2012-02-06

Dorothea Hackmann v. Randy Behm
, and the entry of judgment for the deficiency, carry into effect and enforce the judgment of foreclosure and sale
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10042 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] NOTICE
was renumbered to § 767.61, effective January 1, 2007, however. 2005 Wis. Act 443, §§ 109, 267. All
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=39276 - 2014-09-15

State v. Ryan E. Brockman
on the effects of alcohol on HGN, but tests his patients for nystagmus. Specialized optometric training in HGN
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9285 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] NOTICE
that the cumulative effect of these alleged errors establishes sufficient prejudice to justify a new trial. ¶9
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32006 - 2014-09-15

State v. Terry A. Doxtator
have been ideal, but rather to what amounts to reasonably effective representation.” See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3870 - 2005-03-31