Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3181 - 3190 of 36036 for affidavit of mailing.
Search results 3181 - 3190 of 36036 for affidavit of mailing.
COURT OF APPEALS
his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant because the affidavit in support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60850 - 2011-03-07
his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant because the affidavit in support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60850 - 2011-03-07
State v. Edward A. Stoetzel
motion to suppress that evidence. The dispositive issues are (1) whether the search warrant affidavit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10830 - 2005-03-31
motion to suppress that evidence. The dispositive issues are (1) whether the search warrant affidavit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10830 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Edward A. Stoetzel
. The dispositive issues are (1) whether the search warrant affidavit contained a false statement made
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10830 - 2017-09-20
. The dispositive issues are (1) whether the search warrant affidavit contained a false statement made
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10830 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
NOTICE
the affidavit in support of the warrant failed to establish probable cause that contraband would be found
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60850 - 2014-09-15
the affidavit in support of the warrant failed to establish probable cause that contraband would be found
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60850 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Supreme Court rule petition 21-04 - Comments from Christina J. Gilbert, Senior Youth Policy Counsel, The Gault Center, National Juvenile Defender Center
of Support (“Memo”)v and supporting documents.vi Dr. Coffey and Ms. Rodrik’s Affidavit asserts
/supreme/docs/2104commentsgilbert.pdf - 2021-12-23
of Support (“Memo”)v and supporting documents.vi Dr. Coffey and Ms. Rodrik’s Affidavit asserts
/supreme/docs/2104commentsgilbert.pdf - 2021-12-23
James P. Zientek v. Robert C. Smith
and that an affidavit of correction filed by the surveyor had no impact on the prior judgment.[1] The Smiths cross
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9133 - 2005-03-31
and that an affidavit of correction filed by the surveyor had no impact on the prior judgment.[1] The Smiths cross
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9133 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
James P. Zientek v. Robert C. Smith
and that an affidavit of correction filed by the surveyor had no impact on the prior judgment.1 The Smiths cross
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9133 - 2017-09-19
and that an affidavit of correction filed by the surveyor had no impact on the prior judgment.1 The Smiths cross
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9133 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Rules Petition 08-01
primarily through return of undeliverable mail and failures to appear. To correct this, two approaches
/supreme/docs/0801petition.pdf - 2010-01-20
primarily through return of undeliverable mail and failures to appear. To correct this, two approaches
/supreme/docs/0801petition.pdf - 2010-01-20
[PDF]
SCR CHAPTER 31
be made within 60 days after notice of the action taken has been sent by mail to the lawyer or sponsor
/sc/scrule/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=486921 - 2022-02-18
be made within 60 days after notice of the action taken has been sent by mail to the lawyer or sponsor
/sc/scrule/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=486921 - 2022-02-18
[PDF]
SCR CHAPTER 31
be made within 60 days after notice of the action taken has been sent by mail to the lawyer or sponsor
/sc/scrule/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=469396 - 2022-01-03
be made within 60 days after notice of the action taken has been sent by mail to the lawyer or sponsor
/sc/scrule/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=469396 - 2022-01-03