Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 31971 - 31980 of 57351 for id.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
they are clearly erroneous. See id. at 283. Whether the historical facts meet the constitutional test
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=182519 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
determine whether habeas relief is available under those facts. Id. In this case, because the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=92114 - 2014-09-15

COURT OF APPEALS
of the party seeking review. See id. at 355. If the decision sought to be reviewed is not a final order under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88117 - 2012-10-10

[PDF] NOTICE
and prejudicial to the defense are questions of law which [we] review[] independently.” Id. at 127-28
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33423 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy. Id. We need not resolve
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=399291 - 2021-07-27

[PDF] State v. Woodrow K. Bartlett
meets statutory and constitutional standards is a question of law that we review de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3951 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] State v. Kenneth R. McGrew
. Id. It provides that neither party is entitled to pretrial discovery in traffic forfeiture actions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4570 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
need not address the second. Id. at 697. ¶11 When deciding whether a defendant is entitled
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=596782 - 2022-12-06

State v. Cedric Johnson
of defendant's knowledge of the nature of the charge established prior to the plea hearing.” Id., 131 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10885 - 2005-03-31

State v. Tammy M.
parties.” Id. at 196. ¶16 In this case, Judge Hazlewood placed great reliance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15910 - 2005-03-31