Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 35521 - 35530 of 68926 for he.

[PDF] State v. Dustin F. Teller
severely kicked the victim in the head several times while he lay on the sidewalk unconscious outside
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13198 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Jerome Pecore
consecutive sentence he received on his three convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon, attempted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10381 - 2017-09-20

COURT OF APPEALS
] He contends that his direct appeal rights should be reinstated and that appellate counsel should
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=57468 - 2010-12-06

COURT OF APPEALS
changed their minds and made that transfer, based on the same conduct report. He argues that their action
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=42780 - 2005-03-31

L.L.N. v. J. Gibbs Clauder
propensity to use his position as chaplain to sexually exploit patients whom he counseled. Thus, the Diocese
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17042 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] L.L.N. v. J. Gibbs Clauder
to sexually exploit patients whom he counseled. Thus, the Diocese is entitled to summary judgment
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17042 - 2017-09-21

Patricia Wischer v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.
.[8] The court of appeals interpreted § 895.85(3) in the instant case as follows: "[t]he phrase
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16486 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Frontsheet
was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because he did not understand the effect a read-in charge could
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=169793 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Patricia Wischer v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.
interpreted § 895.85(3) in the instant case as follows: "[t]he phrase 'intentional disregard of the rights
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16496 - 2017-09-21

Patricia Wischer v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.
.[8] The court of appeals interpreted § 895.85(3) in the instant case as follows: "[t]he phrase
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16496 - 2005-03-31