Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 38981 - 38990 of 62362 for child support.
Search results 38981 - 38990 of 62362 for child support.
COURT OF APPEALS
motion, following a nonevidentiary hearing. In support of its decision, the court stated, “[T]he facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=135537 - 2015-02-23
motion, following a nonevidentiary hearing. In support of its decision, the court stated, “[T]he facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=135537 - 2015-02-23
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
phone evidence.” In support of this claim, Tappa asserted he would prove during an evidentiary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=511880 - 2022-04-19
phone evidence.” In support of this claim, Tappa asserted he would prove during an evidentiary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=511880 - 2022-04-19
State v. George Owens
specific question prejudiced the defense. His allegations are therefore insufficient to support his claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14170 - 2005-03-31
specific question prejudiced the defense. His allegations are therefore insufficient to support his claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14170 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
not contain anything that supports Hanson’s claim that his plea was not voluntary, knowing, or intelligent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=131518 - 2017-09-21
not contain anything that supports Hanson’s claim that his plea was not voluntary, knowing, or intelligent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=131518 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
citations. In her brief supporting her motion for summary judgment, Iwakiri argued the 1996 ordinances
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=68847 - 2011-08-01
citations. In her brief supporting her motion for summary judgment, Iwakiri argued the 1996 ordinances
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=68847 - 2011-08-01
Donna F. Conradt v. Mt. Carmel School
. Mt. Carmel also presented documentary evidence to support its position that after the roof
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8214 - 2005-03-31
. Mt. Carmel also presented documentary evidence to support its position that after the roof
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8214 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that appellate counsel should have cited additional case law in support of his claim that trial counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=546491 - 2022-07-21
that appellate counsel should have cited additional case law in support of his claim that trial counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=546491 - 2022-07-21
State v. David E. Polnitz
reasons. First, the evidence presented at the Miranda/Goodchild hearing supports the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4583 - 2005-03-31
reasons. First, the evidence presented at the Miranda/Goodchild hearing supports the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4583 - 2005-03-31
State v. Clarence Givens
evidence to support his conviction for one of the delivery counts; and that the trial court’s failure
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12420 - 2005-03-31
evidence to support his conviction for one of the delivery counts; and that the trial court’s failure
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12420 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
to support declaratory judgment, that Troha was not a party to the operating agreement, that the non-compete
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29320 - 2007-06-12
to support declaratory judgment, that Troha was not a party to the operating agreement, that the non-compete
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29320 - 2007-06-12