Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3541 - 3550 of 6984 for a u.
Search results 3541 - 3550 of 6984 for a u.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. §§ 345.45, 800.08(3), that the defendant “dr[o]ve or operate[d] a motor vehicle while … [u]nder
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=346287 - 2021-03-17
. §§ 345.45, 800.08(3), that the defendant “dr[o]ve or operate[d] a motor vehicle while … [u]nder
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=346287 - 2021-03-17
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, in order to satisfy the legal standard for a constructive trust.” Finally, James believes that ”[u]nder
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=353021 - 2021-04-06
, in order to satisfy the legal standard for a constructive trust.” Finally, James believes that ”[u]nder
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=353021 - 2021-04-06
[PDF]
NOTICE
, which Kachur’s proof does not overcome. See Barker, 407 U. S. at 532. ¶24 PREJUDICIAL EFFECT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30082 - 2014-09-15
, which Kachur’s proof does not overcome. See Barker, 407 U. S. at 532. ¶24 PREJUDICIAL EFFECT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30082 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the prosecutor’s explanation is the issue,” and “[u]nless discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=541749 - 2022-07-08
of the prosecutor’s explanation is the issue,” and “[u]nless discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=541749 - 2022-07-08
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
consumable liquids and outlining that “[u]nder the Federal Alcohol Administration Act intoxicating liquors
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=945880 - 2025-04-22
consumable liquids and outlining that “[u]nder the Federal Alcohol Administration Act intoxicating liquors
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=945880 - 2025-04-22
State v. Donald DeBaere
with a consecutive term of probation. And, the State advised the court: “[U]pon [a presentence] evaluation from
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16330 - 2005-03-31
with a consecutive term of probation. And, the State advised the court: “[U]pon [a presentence] evaluation from
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16330 - 2005-03-31
Ronald W. Monette v. Corinne Monette
maintenance from $600 to $300. Without record citation, Corinne contends, “[U]nder the known circumstances
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3853 - 2005-03-31
maintenance from $600 to $300. Without record citation, Corinne contends, “[U]nder the known circumstances
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3853 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
as “significantly shorter” then Hudson. Hudson offered nothing in reply to this contention. “[U]nrefuted facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=85628 - 2014-09-15
as “significantly shorter” then Hudson. Hudson offered nothing in reply to this contention. “[U]nrefuted facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=85628 - 2014-09-15
Sinora Glenn v. Michael T. Plante, M.D.
1983), the supreme court said: “‘[U]nlike factual testimony, expert testimony is not unique
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5292 - 2005-03-31
1983), the supreme court said: “‘[U]nlike factual testimony, expert testimony is not unique
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5292 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
not able to be transcribed.” The court concluded, “[u]nfortunately, nothing in the official minutes cited
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31988 - 2008-03-04
not able to be transcribed.” The court concluded, “[u]nfortunately, nothing in the official minutes cited
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31988 - 2008-03-04