Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 32711 - 32720 of 64601 for divorce records/1000.
Search results 32711 - 32720 of 64601 for divorce records/1000.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
properly denied his motion for plea withdrawal because the record as a whole, including the limited
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=101510 - 2017-09-21
properly denied his motion for plea withdrawal because the record as a whole, including the limited
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=101510 - 2017-09-21
State v. Nathan Speers
effort. The record of the suppression hearing does not bear out Speers’ contention. The record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17730 - 2005-05-02
effort. The record of the suppression hearing does not bear out Speers’ contention. The record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17730 - 2005-05-02
State v. Keith S. Betts
[or her] motion to raise a question of fact, or presents only conclusionary allegations, or if the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4538 - 2005-03-31
[or her] motion to raise a question of fact, or presents only conclusionary allegations, or if the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4538 - 2005-03-31
Louis Kapischke v. County of Walworth
), the supreme court held that “both the open meetings and open records laws are exempt from the notice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13771 - 2005-03-31
), the supreme court held that “both the open meetings and open records laws are exempt from the notice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13771 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
argument. Martin contends that the State misrepresented facts and referred to evidence not in the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56964 - 2010-11-22
argument. Martin contends that the State misrepresented facts and referred to evidence not in the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56964 - 2010-11-22
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
restricted his evaluation to her records and discussions that he had with the staff
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=87624 - 2017-09-21
restricted his evaluation to her records and discussions that he had with the staff
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=87624 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
)(a) that the statement was … a prior inconsistent statement of the declarant. We did hear [S.G.] state on the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=249297 - 2019-10-29
)(a) that the statement was … a prior inconsistent statement of the declarant. We did hear [S.G.] state on the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=249297 - 2019-10-29
[PDF]
James D. Luedtke v. Daniel Bertrand
the certiorari petition was filed, the court ordered the return of the record. 1 After the return was filed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13233 - 2017-09-21
the certiorari petition was filed, the court ordered the return of the record. 1 After the return was filed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13233 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
ultimately rejected the motion on the grounds that the record established probable No. 2009AP2249-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=50188 - 2014-09-15
ultimately rejected the motion on the grounds that the record established probable No. 2009AP2249-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=50188 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
that the State relies on in its brief, did not testify before the jury. The record confirms that Staples’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=56964 - 2014-09-15
that the State relies on in its brief, did not testify before the jury. The record confirms that Staples’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=56964 - 2014-09-15