Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 34571 - 34580 of 57351 for id.

Pepperkorn Bros., Inc. v. National Income Realty Trust
of the evidence. Id. In addition, the trial court is the ultimate arbiter of the witnesses' credibility when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9788 - 2005-03-31

State v. Joseph Pearce
as the severity of the offense charged and the nature of the verdict returned.[1] Id. 327, 504 N.W.2d at 364
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9523 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
as to one of the components. Id. at 697. To establish that a lawyer’s performance was deficient
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=115155 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] J. Dale Dawson v. Robert J. Goldammer
to the policy goals of the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection. See id, ¶34
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20028 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 24, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of A...
of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. We then independently review whether those facts satisfy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26882 - 2006-10-23

John W. Ernst, v. Berndt Buick Company
certificate is only evidentiary, however. Id. at 573b-73c, 290 N.W.2d at 874. Where the statute's
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8786 - 2005-03-31

Frederick N. Spence v. Marianne A. Cooke
). In determining legislative intent, we first examine the statutory language itself. See id. If the statute’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14471 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Bruce Martindale v. Bruce A. Ripp
pain. Id. at 667-68, 360 N.W.2d at 534. The Brantner court stated that, while “[a] doctor’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15239 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
See id. (“[A]pplication … to a circuit court for an order restraining the inspector of buildings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=91544 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Donald J. Buford
will be upheld unless clearly erroneous and determinations of law will be reviewed independently. Id. at 189
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6924 - 2017-09-20