Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 37671 - 37680 of 63981 for records/1000.
Search results 37671 - 37680 of 63981 for records/1000.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the court finds substantial reason not to do so and states the reason on the record. The restitution
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=158099 - 2017-09-21
the court finds substantial reason not to do so and states the reason on the record. The restitution
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=158099 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Diane K. Butz
cause is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Id. at 137-38. A review of the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4108 - 2017-09-20
cause is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Id. at 137-38. A review of the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4108 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. No. 2014AP1668 2 our review of the briefs and the record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=156068 - 2017-09-21
. No. 2014AP1668 2 our review of the briefs and the record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=156068 - 2017-09-21
Spriggie Hensley v. Jeffrey P. Endicott
their expertise in a given area; (2) that exhaustion will allow the agency to develop a factual record which
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2128 - 2005-03-31
their expertise in a given area; (2) that exhaustion will allow the agency to develop a factual record which
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2128 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Andre Wingo v. Randall R. Hepp
record, but in the appendix to the respondent’s brief. The court will take judicial notice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21139 - 2017-09-21
record, but in the appendix to the respondent’s brief. The court will take judicial notice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21139 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
not done so. Upon consideration of the no-merit report and an independent review of the record
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118470 - 2014-09-15
not done so. Upon consideration of the no-merit report and an independent review of the record
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118470 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
. § 805.18(2). Because the record in this case does not reveal any errors that require a new trial, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36419 - 2014-09-15
. § 805.18(2). Because the record in this case does not reveal any errors that require a new trial, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36419 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. John E. Prochaska
the taking of the blood sample.” And we conclude that, on this record, Prochaska had not been arrested
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14217 - 2014-09-15
the taking of the blood sample.” And we conclude that, on this record, Prochaska had not been arrested
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14217 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the records as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we conclude there is no arguable merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=527012 - 2022-06-01
of the records as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we conclude there is no arguable merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=527012 - 2022-06-01
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
16, 2013. With regard to Hautop specifically, the GAL asserted: The records I received
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192692 - 2017-09-21
16, 2013. With regard to Hautop specifically, the GAL asserted: The records I received
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192692 - 2017-09-21