Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3181 - 3190 of 27308 for ad.

[PDF] State v. Johnnie A. Trotter
then has the discretion to grant or deny the state’s motion.” Id. (emphasis added). ¶10 In Clark
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5331 - 2017-09-19

Michael R. Platz v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company
. (emphasis added).[1] The trial court's explanation for its decision to change
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7930 - 2005-03-31

State v. Larry G. Edwards
did not present a new issue. Edwards, No. 01-3352-CR, unpublished order (emphasis added). ¶6
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16577 - 2005-03-31

Mark Johnson (Deceased) v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
. Immediately following its conclusion, the Commission added a memorandum opinion in which it stated:[3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3337 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Diane R.
erroneously gives the birth date of Dominique and Octavius as September 21, 1991. 3 The guardian ad
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13597 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
counsel moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The State opposed the motion and added: “[T]he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191025 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Shannon Elizabeth Singer v. James Joseph Singer
and school, and cooperation between the parents. Id. Here, the parties and the guardian ad litem agreed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3070 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Mark Johnson (Deceased) v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
, the Commission added a memorandum opinion in which it stated: 3 The commission did consult
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3337 - 2017-09-19

State v. James Jagodinsky
....” (Emphasis added.) The trial court added that it was accepting the prosecutor's explanation that he had used
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11555 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
, [the parties] were not married.” Id., ¶32. The court added that the term “single persons [did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=679391 - 2023-07-18