Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3361 - 3370 of 57878 for WA 0859 3970 0884 Tukang Pasang Plafon PVC Ide Terpercaya Delanggu Klaten.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
in blood does not constitute a per se exigency. See id., ¶18; McNeely, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1552
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=134436 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS
to agree to all the questions. Id., 124 Wis. 2d at 71–72, 368 N.W.2d at 59. II. ¶5 As in C.E.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=118898 - 2014-08-04

[PDF] State v. Gregory A. Zimdars
to answer any more questions for the officer. Id. at 535. He turned away and started to run toward
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6641 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] State v. Susan E. Burks
convictions, not to enhance the rights of alleged drunk drivers. Id. at 224. Given the legislature's
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3454 - 2017-09-19

State v. Deborah P. Dodski
the driver voluntarily submits to the testing. Id. at 534-35. The court held the dissipation of alcohol
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3815 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] WI APP 58
of constitutional principles to those facts is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. DISCUSSION ¶5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=110749 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
). In examining the reasonableness of a traffic stop, we apply a commonsense test. Id. “The crucial question
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106876 - 2017-09-21

State v. Gregory A. Gibbs
and prejudice. Id. Furthermore, to overcome this presumption, the party asserting judicial bias must show
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11153 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
questions of constitutional fact, we apply a two-step standard of review. Id. First, we will uphold
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35381 - 2009-02-02

COURT OF APPEALS
sentence. Id., ¶44. The court approved as “sound” the reasoning of the pre-TIS case of Ashford v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44147 - 2009-12-07