Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3741 - 3750 of 63339 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 3741 - 3750 of 63339 for Motion for joint custody.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
was not in custody for purposes of Miranda during either interrogation. Legal Standards ¶7 We review motions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=280749 - 2020-08-20
was not in custody for purposes of Miranda during either interrogation. Legal Standards ¶7 We review motions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=280749 - 2020-08-20
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
se, contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence as well as his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=876431 - 2024-11-19
se, contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence as well as his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=876431 - 2024-11-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
se, contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence as well as his
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=876431 - 2024-11-19
se, contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence as well as his
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=876431 - 2024-11-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
Linsmeyer’s motion to enforce a physical placement order and ordered Linsmeyer to pay his former spouse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=301683 - 2020-11-05
Linsmeyer’s motion to enforce a physical placement order and ordered Linsmeyer to pay his former spouse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=301683 - 2020-11-05
[PDF]
NOTICE
the sentencing objectives (“minimum custody requirements”). The trial court denied the motion, explaining
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=48451 - 2014-09-15
the sentencing objectives (“minimum custody requirements”). The trial court denied the motion, explaining
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=48451 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
(“minimum custody requirements”). The trial court denied the motion, explaining the specific mitigating
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=48451 - 2010-03-29
(“minimum custody requirements”). The trial court denied the motion, explaining the specific mitigating
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=48451 - 2010-03-29
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
filed the previous § 974.06 motions, he was in custody in Arizona as opposed to Wisconsin
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=218915 - 2018-09-19
filed the previous § 974.06 motions, he was in custody in Arizona as opposed to Wisconsin
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=218915 - 2018-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
in a rollover crash. Johnson’s suppression motion alleged that he agreed to speak with the police after
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=215514 - 2018-07-11
in a rollover crash. Johnson’s suppression motion alleged that he agreed to speak with the police after
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=215514 - 2018-07-11
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and the girls’ mother, Kelly, are divorced; Baer was the custodial parent. He contended the girls falsely
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=245613 - 2019-08-28
and the girls’ mother, Kelly, are divorced; Baer was the custodial parent. He contended the girls falsely
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=245613 - 2019-08-28
State v. Todd E. Crider
appeals from a judgment and an order denying his postconviction motion to vacate his conviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15465 - 2005-03-31
appeals from a judgment and an order denying his postconviction motion to vacate his conviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15465 - 2005-03-31