Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 35641 - 35650 of 63787 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 35641 - 35650 of 63787 for Motion for joint custody.
Columbia County v. Gary O. Kloostra
) in violation of a Columbia County ordinance. He claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3970 - 2005-03-31
) in violation of a Columbia County ordinance. He claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3970 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
O’Connor appeals from an order denying her motion for relief from a 2003 default judgment in favor of C
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52528 - 2014-09-15
O’Connor appeals from an order denying her motion for relief from a 2003 default judgment in favor of C
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52528 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Michael R. Meurer
test performed on his blood. The trial court denied the motion. Meurer challenges this ruling
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7623 - 2017-09-19
test performed on his blood. The trial court denied the motion. Meurer challenges this ruling
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7623 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
by counsel, filed an appeal to the circuit court on August 16, 2018, and the Department filed a motion
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=252108 - 2020-01-08
by counsel, filed an appeal to the circuit court on August 16, 2018, and the Department filed a motion
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=252108 - 2020-01-08
Melissa Ertz Rogge v. Paul Aaron Rogge
motion for “clarification” should have been treated as a motion to revise or modify the judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5976 - 2005-03-31
motion for “clarification” should have been treated as a motion to revise or modify the judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5976 - 2005-03-31
State v. Charlie Sislo
The court denied the motion regarding jury fees. It concluded that it was not going to determine who
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18850 - 2005-07-05
The court denied the motion regarding jury fees. It concluded that it was not going to determine who
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18850 - 2005-07-05
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
postconviction motion for sentencing relief. 1 Because we conclude that Williams failed to establish either
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=172920 - 2017-09-21
postconviction motion for sentencing relief. 1 Because we conclude that Williams failed to establish either
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=172920 - 2017-09-21
State v. Thomas M. Milligan
the judgment of conviction entered against him and from the order denying his motion for postconviction relief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2346 - 2005-03-31
the judgment of conviction entered against him and from the order denying his motion for postconviction relief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2346 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
motion for relief. He seeks either sentence modification due to a new factor or resentencing due
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1094435 - 2026-03-25
motion for relief. He seeks either sentence modification due to a new factor or resentencing due
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1094435 - 2026-03-25
[PDF]
County of Iowa v. Stephen C. Bidwell
the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI). He claims the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15659 - 2017-09-21
the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI). He claims the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15659 - 2017-09-21