Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 37081 - 37090 of 40013 for financial disclosure statement.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
statements in support of Jenkins to the State, and that the State could have “attacked” Breanna as biased
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=983932 - 2025-07-16

State v. Shawn A. Beasley
,” which the dissent describes as follows: the “usual statement is that if a statute is ambiguous
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5581 - 2005-03-31

State v. Jesse Liukonen
in Williams: I concede that the prosecutor’s statements could be characterized as not enthusiastically
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6576 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Jace C. Schmelzer v. James P. Murphy
by the defendant, the attorney shall file the petition to appeal and the defendant shall file a statement
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17012 - 2017-09-21

State v. Sam Elam
statements, her testimony was limited to her initial description of the suspect, which did not resemble Elam
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14854 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Mary A. Merta v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
it but no discipline resulted. Also, he made a derogatory statement at a meeting and was called into a supervisor’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7562 - 2017-09-19

Bruce Gebhart v. Green Lake County
is supported by testimony from Podgorski, Roeder, and Draeger and a statement in Riske’s testimony. Even
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26557 - 2006-09-26

Brown County Department of Health & Human Services v. Tammy L.W.
). ¶30 At the dispositional hearing, Rick appeared by telephone and made a brief statement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3591 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Samuel Terry
consideration of inculpatory statements or a parolee’s refusal to answer questions. These distinctions reflect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15885 - 2017-09-21

Tecwyn Roberts v. John J. Wolf
is not material to coverage under the PELE as evidenced by the following basic policy statements: PART I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2565 - 2005-03-31