Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 37931 - 37940 of 57351 for id.

COURT OF APPEALS
a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion a reasonable judge could reach. Id. “We will not find
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=66240 - 2011-06-20

[PDF] State v. Brian T. Ladwig
.’” Id. at 353, 588 N.W.2d at 616 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444). We must consider whether, under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14522 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
risk of the evidence leading to confusion of the issues or unfair prejudice. See id. Furthermore
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=445604 - 2021-10-26

[PDF] CA Blank Order
novo. See id., ¶9. Officer Saltzwadel testified that his purpose in interviewing Torres-Bailey
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=232950 - 2019-01-15

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 7, 2007 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of...
interest should give way in the face of more significant considerations. Id. (holding that the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28296 - 2007-03-06

WI App 26 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2011AP1807-FT Complete Title...
as a matter of law.” Id.; see also Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2). In this case we must examine the language
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=76349 - 2012-02-28

State v. Scott A. Morgan
against double jeopardy, which protects the integrity of final judgments. Id. at 674-75, 360 N.W.2d at 45
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7972 - 2005-03-31

CA Blank Order
,’” id. at 310-11 (citation omitted), a certified driving record contains no analysis, opinions
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140852 - 2015-04-28

COURT OF APPEALS
a processor under the facts of this case. Id., ¶23. ¶14 We conclude that Baumeister and Brown resemble
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=76801 - 2012-01-18

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
for purposes of a Fourth Amendment search must be ‘unequivocal and specific.’” Id., ¶46 (citation omitted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1064813 - 2026-01-23