Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 37261 - 37270 of 46087 for paternity test paper work.
Search results 37261 - 37270 of 46087 for paternity test paper work.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of counsel under the test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See Balliette, 336
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=410210 - 2021-08-17
of counsel under the test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See Balliette, 336
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=410210 - 2021-08-17
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
factor” under the current test for causation means a “primary factor.” Id. at 456-57. Therefore
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=216063 - 2018-07-24
factor” under the current test for causation means a “primary factor.” Id. at 456-57. Therefore
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=216063 - 2018-07-24
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
not address both components of the test if the defendant fails to make a sufficient showing on one of them
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=216042 - 2018-07-24
not address both components of the test if the defendant fails to make a sufficient showing on one of them
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=216042 - 2018-07-24
[PDF]
State v. Larry E. Prust
. However, we conclude the trial court’s misstatement is harmless error. The test for harmless error
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5068 - 2017-09-19
. However, we conclude the trial court’s misstatement is harmless error. The test for harmless error
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5068 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
to the familiar two-prong test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), a defendant must
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1020949 - 2025-10-09
to the familiar two-prong test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), a defendant must
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1020949 - 2025-10-09
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
No. 2022AP1906-CR 6 repeatedly applied the proper legal standard (i.e., the Sullivan test
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=815692 - 2024-06-25
No. 2022AP1906-CR 6 repeatedly applied the proper legal standard (i.e., the Sullivan test
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=815692 - 2024-06-25
COURT OF APPEALS
on the ground of lack of prejudice. State v. Moats, 156 Wis. 2d 74, 101, 457 N.W.2d 299 (1990). The test
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90288 - 2012-12-11
on the ground of lack of prejudice. State v. Moats, 156 Wis. 2d 74, 101, 457 N.W.2d 299 (1990). The test
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90288 - 2012-12-11
Certification
, delivery performed outside the service area late in a pregnancy term, or amniocentesis testing for the sole
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=40373 - 2009-09-02
, delivery performed outside the service area late in a pregnancy term, or amniocentesis testing for the sole
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=40373 - 2009-09-02
William E. Johnson v. Donna M. Johnson
. at 132, 493 N.W.2d at 36. This situation met the “very unusual circumstances” test established
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14312 - 2005-03-31
. at 132, 493 N.W.2d at 36. This situation met the “very unusual circumstances” test established
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14312 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
(1968)). ¶12 “The question of what constitutes reasonable suspicion is a common sense test: under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=257735 - 2020-04-14
(1968)). ¶12 “The question of what constitutes reasonable suspicion is a common sense test: under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=257735 - 2020-04-14