Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 37031 - 37040 of 73951 for public records.
Search results 37031 - 37040 of 73951 for public records.
State v. Rodobaldo C. Pozo
." The purpose of the exception is one of "state public policy": to reduce the number of contested trials when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8637 - 2005-03-31
." The purpose of the exception is one of "state public policy": to reduce the number of contested trials when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8637 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
device, and operating after No. 2014AP963-CR 3 revocation. The State Public Defender’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149774 - 2017-09-21
device, and operating after No. 2014AP963-CR 3 revocation. The State Public Defender’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149774 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, the record shows that the postconviction court’s findings support a conclusion that neither
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=237000 - 2019-03-12
, the record shows that the postconviction court’s findings support a conclusion that neither
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=237000 - 2019-03-12
COURT OF APPEALS
] We agree and reverse. BACKGROUND ¶3 The relevant facts of record are not in dispute
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82789 - 2012-03-05
] We agree and reverse. BACKGROUND ¶3 The relevant facts of record are not in dispute
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82789 - 2012-03-05
COURT OF APPEALS
, it was open to the public for passage, and the officer knew it was not closed. ¶3 At the hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29819 - 2007-07-25
, it was open to the public for passage, and the officer knew it was not closed. ¶3 At the hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29819 - 2007-07-25
State v. Dennis L. Farr
; specifically: (1) that he is entitled to “correction of the defective record of this case” for purposes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11376 - 2005-03-31
; specifically: (1) that he is entitled to “correction of the defective record of this case” for purposes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11376 - 2005-03-31
[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=628509 - 2023-03-02
reviewing the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=628509 - 2023-03-02
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
system, there is no evidence in the record to support this contention.” Id., ¶21. The only evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=769650 - 2024-02-27
system, there is no evidence in the record to support this contention.” Id., ¶21. The only evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=769650 - 2024-02-27
[PDF]
Oral Argument Synopses - December 2011
Corporation" as the defendant. The record reveals that Cintas No. 2, the plaintiff's employer
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=74708 - 2014-09-15
Corporation" as the defendant. The record reveals that Cintas No. 2, the plaintiff's employer
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=74708 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
reasoning, we will uphold the trial court’s decision if there are facts in the record which would support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=51802 - 2010-07-13
reasoning, we will uphold the trial court’s decision if there are facts in the record which would support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=51802 - 2010-07-13