Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 33781 - 33790 of 63243 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 33781 - 33790 of 63243 for Motion for joint custody.
COURT OF APPEALS
his postconviction motion.[1] Because the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its sentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=86884 - 2012-09-10
his postconviction motion.[1] Because the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its sentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=86884 - 2012-09-10
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
filed a summary judgment motion, arguing that dismissal was required because Jeffrey lacked
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=96022 - 2014-09-15
filed a summary judgment motion, arguing that dismissal was required because Jeffrey lacked
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=96022 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
motion to suppress evidence. We conclude the circuit court properly denied the motion. Accordingly, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=39047 - 2009-08-05
motion to suppress evidence. We conclude the circuit court properly denied the motion. Accordingly, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=39047 - 2009-08-05
[PDF]
State v. Christopher S. Vnuk
on the motion, the court granted the motion as to the evidence obtained in Vnuk’s bedroom and bathroom
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25239 - 2017-09-21
on the motion, the court granted the motion as to the evidence obtained in Vnuk’s bedroom and bathroom
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25239 - 2017-09-21
State v. Anthony Kane
not misuse its discretion in denying Kane’s motion to withdraw his Alford pleas. We further conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15092 - 2006-11-14
not misuse its discretion in denying Kane’s motion to withdraw his Alford pleas. We further conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15092 - 2006-11-14
Kenosha County Department of Human Services v. Brian C.
to the adjournment. Brian also did not object. In fact, he had filed a pro se motion asking the court to extend
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4168 - 2008-11-03
to the adjournment. Brian also did not object. In fact, he had filed a pro se motion asking the court to extend
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4168 - 2008-11-03
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
id. at 4. We subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration. ¶3 Funches next returned
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98457 - 2014-09-15
id. at 4. We subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration. ¶3 Funches next returned
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98457 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
on 1 Hebel asserts that the circuit court acted only on the Department’s motion to dismiss and did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60265 - 2014-09-15
on 1 Hebel asserts that the circuit court acted only on the Department’s motion to dismiss and did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60265 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
. Nordquist argues the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because the arresting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28123 - 2014-09-15
. Nordquist argues the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because the arresting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28123 - 2014-09-15
State v. Norman Earl Rhodes
denying his motions for postconviction relief, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9011 - 2005-03-31
denying his motions for postconviction relief, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9011 - 2005-03-31