Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 31791 - 31800 of 57351 for id.

State v. Fredrick E. Jones
with an assertion of jury inattentiveness is determined by the trial court’s informed discretion.” Id. at 670
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19803 - 2005-10-03

State v. Tammy F.
except where different procedure is prescribed by statute or rule. Id. (emphasis added). From this, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9110 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
the inference drawn by the trier of fact.” Id. Here, the testimony amply supports the trial court’s findings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36770 - 2009-06-16

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 23, 2007 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court...
). Similarly, whether a breach is material is a question of fact. Id. at 183. However, whether the facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27877 - 2007-01-22

[PDF] Lynn P. Adrian v. Gary E. Immel
a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach. See id. ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2392 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
. Whether the circuit court erred as a matter of law is a constitutional fact which we review de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=83712 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Rupert J. Loeffler v. Emma G. Loeffler
the procedural requirements or to point them to the proper substantive law. Id. It was Rupert's choice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9281 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Krist Oil Co., Inc. v. City of Ashland
any classification that traditionally receives some heightened level of scrutiny. Cf. id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10200 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] Professional Guardianships, Inc. v. Ruth E. J.
to be narrowly drawn to further a compelling government interest. Id. If the statute does not affect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9411 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Allen B. Schenkoski v. Labor & Industry Review Commission
to the contrary. Id. at 507, 493 N.W.2d at 16. In contrast, Schenkoski's proposed broad reading of § 102.42
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10211 - 2017-09-20