Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 34201 - 34210 of 63284 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 34201 - 34210 of 63284 for Motion for joint custody.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that the circuit court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence on the ground that law enforcement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=916423 - 2025-02-18
that the circuit court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence on the ground that law enforcement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=916423 - 2025-02-18
[PDF]
Perry M. Ankerson v. EPIK Corporation
and moved to intervene as a defendant. Its motion was granted on May 13, 2002. EPIK remained in the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7231 - 2017-09-20
and moved to intervene as a defendant. Its motion was granted on May 13, 2002. EPIK remained in the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7231 - 2017-09-20
COURT OF APPEALS
in part First American’s postverdict motions. First American challenges certain rulings made
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88089 - 2012-12-02
in part First American’s postverdict motions. First American challenges certain rulings made
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88089 - 2012-12-02
[PDF]
WI APP 271
the sentencing. The Hon. William W. Brash III presided over the postconviction motion. No. 2007AP355-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30876 - 2014-09-15
the sentencing. The Hon. William W. Brash III presided over the postconviction motion. No. 2007AP355-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30876 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. George Melvin Taylor
person, and an order denying his postcommitment motion. Taylor contends that his trial counsel’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6560 - 2017-09-19
person, and an order denying his postcommitment motion. Taylor contends that his trial counsel’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6560 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Oral Argument Synopses - March 2021
seat. Genous was subsequently arrested and charged. Genous filed a motion to suppress the evidence
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=343380 - 2021-03-03
seat. Genous was subsequently arrested and charged. Genous filed a motion to suppress the evidence
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=343380 - 2021-03-03
State v. David J. Brock
. § 961.41(3g)(e). Brock claims that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress based upon his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7631 - 2005-03-31
. § 961.41(3g)(e). Brock claims that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress based upon his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7631 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Carole B. Miller v. General Motors Corporation
, she seems to argue: (1) that the trial court erred by not granting her motion for a new trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10879 - 2017-09-20
, she seems to argue: (1) that the trial court erred by not granting her motion for a new trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10879 - 2017-09-20
State v. Prentiss L. Farr
postconviction motion seeking sentence modification. We conclude that the trial court properly exercised its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8974 - 2005-03-31
postconviction motion seeking sentence modification. We conclude that the trial court properly exercised its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8974 - 2005-03-31
State v. Jeffrey L. Leggions
or obstructing an officer, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1). He contends that his motion to suppress evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5493 - 2005-03-31
or obstructing an officer, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1). He contends that his motion to suppress evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5493 - 2005-03-31