Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3241 - 3250 of 63734 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 3241 - 3250 of 63734 for Motion for joint custody.
State v. Gregory Jordan
, all as party to the crime, and from an order denying his postconviction motion for a new trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10995 - 2005-03-31
, all as party to the crime, and from an order denying his postconviction motion for a new trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10995 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Steven L. Harris
of conviction. Judge Victor Manian denied the first postconviction motion filed by Harris’s postconviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20351 - 2017-09-21
of conviction. Judge Victor Manian denied the first postconviction motion filed by Harris’s postconviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20351 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. He also appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Franklin
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107820 - 2017-09-21
. He also appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Franklin
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107820 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Mark A. Flagstadt
his suppression motion and a judgment of conviction, after his no contest plea, for knowingly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5585 - 2017-09-19
his suppression motion and a judgment of conviction, after his no contest plea, for knowingly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5585 - 2017-09-19
State v. Mark A. Flagstadt
denying his suppression motion and a judgment of conviction, after his no contest plea, for knowingly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5585 - 2005-03-31
denying his suppression motion and a judgment of conviction, after his no contest plea, for knowingly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5585 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
deposited into a joint account he shared with Barbara. Over the course of the marriage, Charles and Barbara
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98830 - 2013-07-01
deposited into a joint account he shared with Barbara. Over the course of the marriage, Charles and Barbara
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98830 - 2013-07-01
COURT OF APPEALS
not have a witness from the state hygiene lab to testify as to the chain of custody. The court recognized
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=127635 - 2014-11-10
not have a witness from the state hygiene lab to testify as to the chain of custody. The court recognized
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=127635 - 2014-11-10
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of custody. The court recognized a standing objection and permitted the State to question Adams regarding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=127635 - 2017-09-21
of custody. The court recognized a standing objection and permitted the State to question Adams regarding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=127635 - 2017-09-21
Laurie Ruth Rosin v. Lee Alan Scholtus
of physical placement of the parties' six-year-old son.[1] The order arising out of Lee's motion to hold
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11588 - 2005-03-31
of physical placement of the parties' six-year-old son.[1] The order arising out of Lee's motion to hold
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11588 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Laurie Ruth Rosin v. Lee Alan Scholtus
decisions made by a person having legal custody. Lee contends that because his motion did not seek
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11588 - 2017-09-19
decisions made by a person having legal custody. Lee contends that because his motion did not seek
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11588 - 2017-09-19