Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 391 - 400 of 11833 for affidavit.
Search results 391 - 400 of 11833 for affidavit.
State v. James M. Welter
that the affidavit in support of the warrant failed to establish probable cause that a confidential informant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3110 - 2005-03-31
that the affidavit in support of the warrant failed to establish probable cause that a confidential informant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3110 - 2005-03-31
State v. James E. Schultz
facts inserted in the officer's affidavit, probable cause to search Schultz's residence was not erased
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10215 - 2005-03-31
facts inserted in the officer's affidavit, probable cause to search Schultz's residence was not erased
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10215 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Jack P. Lindgren
prepared an affidavit for a search warrant for Lindgren’s home, car, and business. A Kenosha county
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6668 - 2017-09-20
prepared an affidavit for a search warrant for Lindgren’s home, car, and business. A Kenosha county
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6668 - 2017-09-20
State v. Jack P. Lindgren
. ¶8 The detectives prepared an affidavit for a search warrant for Lindgren’s home, car
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6669 - 2005-03-31
. ¶8 The detectives prepared an affidavit for a search warrant for Lindgren’s home, car
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6669 - 2005-03-31
State v. Jack P. Lindgren
warrants. ¶8 The detectives prepared an affidavit for a search warrant for Lindgren’s home, car
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6668 - 2005-03-31
warrants. ¶8 The detectives prepared an affidavit for a search warrant for Lindgren’s home, car
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6668 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Jack P. Lindgren
prepared an affidavit for a search warrant for Lindgren’s home, car, and business. A Kenosha county
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6669 - 2017-09-20
prepared an affidavit for a search warrant for Lindgren’s home, car, and business. A Kenosha county
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6669 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
was not a witness at the trial, and Jamison both executed affidavits in support of the postconviction motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=85628 - 2014-09-15
was not a witness at the trial, and Jamison both executed affidavits in support of the postconviction motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=85628 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
. Nolen, who was not a witness at the trial, and Jamison both executed affidavits in support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85628 - 2012-07-30
. Nolen, who was not a witness at the trial, and Jamison both executed affidavits in support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85628 - 2012-07-30
[PDF]
Fun-World 2, L.L.C. v. Joseph Konopka
erroneously disregarded the affidavit of Fun-World’s owner, Samuel Graham, as a “sham” affidavit; (2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5815 - 2017-09-19
erroneously disregarded the affidavit of Fun-World’s owner, Samuel Graham, as a “sham” affidavit; (2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5815 - 2017-09-19
Fun-World 2, L.L.C. v. Joseph Konopka
to its computer system.[1] Fun-World argues that (1) the court erroneously disregarded the affidavit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5815 - 2005-03-31
to its computer system.[1] Fun-World argues that (1) the court erroneously disregarded the affidavit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5815 - 2005-03-31