Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 38071 - 38080 of 57369 for id.

State v. Ivory Suttle
guarantees of trustworthiness . . . .” Id. Because the circumstances surrounding the making of a hearsay
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12160 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
, however, request a hearing on his or her refusal. Id. At the refusal hearing, the issues are limited
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=40653 - 2009-09-09

Traditional Design Works, Ltd. v. John McGourthy, Jr.
as to their significance, summary judgment is improper. See id. Accord and satisfaction is an agreement to discharge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13064 - 2005-03-31

State v. James G. Langenbach
unless no reasonable basis exists for its determination. See id. Thus, we begin with the presumption
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6773 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Craig A. Kvalo
the constitutional standard of probable cause is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. at 137-138
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6084 - 2017-09-19

Town of East Troy v. Village of East Troy
to a trial. Id. We view all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See id. at 338-39
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19731 - 2005-09-27

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
therefore must set the damages at a reasonable amount using an acceptable measuring stick. Id. at 523
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=121333 - 2014-09-17

Town of Harmony v. Donald T. Donahue and Stephen R. Donahue
on constitutional grounds bears a heavy burden, and must have a very clear case. Id. at 349. In determining whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2401 - 2005-03-31

Michael E. Stoetzel v. Washington County Board of Adjustment
or determination in question. See id. “The facts found by the [board] are conclusive if supported by ‘any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4911 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
’” will not suffice. Id. at 27. “[W]hat constitutes reasonable suspicion is a common sense test: under all
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=79588 - 2012-03-14