Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 35431 - 35440 of 63539 for records.
Search results 35431 - 35440 of 63539 for records.
[PDF]
WI APP 48
-created and the evidence in the record does not support the board’s decision. We disagree and affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28233 - 2014-09-15
-created and the evidence in the record does not support the board’s decision. We disagree and affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28233 - 2014-09-15
Secura Insurance Company v. Jerry Brubaker
was not egregious as a matter of law because no reasonable judge could decide that it was based on the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6087 - 2005-03-31
was not egregious as a matter of law because no reasonable judge could decide that it was based on the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6087 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
to suppress physical evidence. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=117806 - 2014-07-29
to suppress physical evidence. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=117806 - 2014-07-29
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of rehabilitation under ch. 51. The record belies this assertion. One expert witness specifically testified
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=176197 - 2017-09-21
of rehabilitation under ch. 51. The record belies this assertion. One expert witness specifically testified
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=176197 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Richard A. Edwards
is that there is no factual basis in the record to support them. We do not know, for instance, whether Edwards requested
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15571 - 2017-09-21
is that there is no factual basis in the record to support them. We do not know, for instance, whether Edwards requested
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15571 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
reviewing the record, we concluded that further proceedings would lack arguable merit, and we affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30604 - 2014-09-15
reviewing the record, we concluded that further proceedings would lack arguable merit, and we affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30604 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
reasons, the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief. Nelson v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31176 - 2014-09-15
reasons, the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief. Nelson v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31176 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
unknowingly overlooked them. See id., ¶40. The record here reveals that this is not the case. ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106694 - 2017-09-21
unknowingly overlooked them. See id., ¶40. The record here reveals that this is not the case. ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106694 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
the consideration of appropriate factors and a reasoned conclusion based on the strength of the record before
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101592 - 2013-09-03
the consideration of appropriate factors and a reasoned conclusion based on the strength of the record before
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101592 - 2013-09-03
State v. James C. Smith
that the court improperly based its finding on facts not in the record when it referred to the 1978 incidents
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6661 - 2005-03-31
that the court improperly based its finding on facts not in the record when it referred to the 1978 incidents
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6661 - 2005-03-31