Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 36791 - 36800 of 84039 for simple case search.
Search results 36791 - 36800 of 84039 for simple case search.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
N.W.2d 289. Where, as in the present case, different judges presided over the original sentencing
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=138503 - 2017-09-21
N.W.2d 289. Where, as in the present case, different judges presided over the original sentencing
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=138503 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
-20).1 Worth was charged in Brown County case Nos. 2018CM1654 and 2019CF92 with misdemeanor bail
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=558439 - 2022-08-23
-20).1 Worth was charged in Brown County case Nos. 2018CM1654 and 2019CF92 with misdemeanor bail
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=558439 - 2022-08-23
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
at conference that this case is appropriate for No. 2015AP1121-CR 2 summary disposition. See
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194569 - 2017-09-21
at conference that this case is appropriate for No. 2015AP1121-CR 2 summary disposition. See
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194569 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
party. The court commissioner ruled in Luedeke’s favor and dismissed Daggett’s case on the merits
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28905 - 2014-09-15
party. The court commissioner ruled in Luedeke’s favor and dismissed Daggett’s case on the merits
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28905 - 2014-09-15
State v. Kristen K. Gamer
court explained its reasons for the sentence as follows: Having heard the testimony in this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9021 - 2005-03-31
court explained its reasons for the sentence as follows: Having heard the testimony in this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9021 - 2005-03-31
State v. Brady B.
in this case because the issue “goes to the very power of the State as it addresses the State’s power to charge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14191 - 2005-03-31
in this case because the issue “goes to the very power of the State as it addresses the State’s power to charge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14191 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
is unconstitutional. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=442352 - 2021-10-20
is unconstitutional. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=442352 - 2021-10-20
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
reviewing the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=725943 - 2023-11-09
reviewing the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=725943 - 2023-11-09
State v. Kenneth M. W.
. Kenneth M. W. and the state entered into a consent decree in a delinquency case in 1994. The decree
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9044 - 2005-03-31
. Kenneth M. W. and the state entered into a consent decree in a delinquency case in 1994. The decree
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9044 - 2005-03-31
State v. David T. Hall
of possession with intent to deliver cocaine in one case, and one count of possession with intent to deliver
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19622 - 2005-09-19
of possession with intent to deliver cocaine in one case, and one count of possession with intent to deliver
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19622 - 2005-09-19