Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 32561 - 32570 of 44730 for part.

COURT OF APPEALS
requirements, we use a three-part test. County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 280, 542 N.W.2d 196
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28923 - 2007-05-07

COURT OF APPEALS
by the two-part test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). In order to establish
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=54420 - 2010-09-13

John L. Burns v. Douglas M. Scheel
by the most unequivocal conduct on the part of the user. See id. at 455, 550 N.W.2d at 725. The Scheels
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11789 - 2005-03-31

State v. Frank Machado
all grounds as part of the direct appeal. The Escalona-Naranjo bar is particularly appropriate where
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8993 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
is supposed to get.” It based its finding in part on the presence of notes in the court file by a trained
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93293 - 2013-02-26

[PDF] CA Blank Order
is contradicted by the record. As part of its colloquy, the plea-taking court expressly told Clay
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=513064 - 2022-04-27

[PDF] Appeal No. 2010AP2762 Cir. Ct. No. 2009CV4313
the position that the consumers’ interpretation of the statute is unreasonable because some parts of the CPCN
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=74289 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] CA Blank Order
on the part of the DOC are not attributable to the DHA. See id. No. 2021AP1803 4 We
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=625616 - 2023-02-22

[PDF] NOTICE
objects to a part of the court’s ruling. He did not file a cross-appeal, however, because he urges
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=43221 - 2014-09-15

CA Blank Order
fail on the merits. [4] While Ziegler frames part of his argument for plea withdrawal as based
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=113776 - 2014-06-02