Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 39021 - 39030 of 50524 for our.

State v. Steve Norton
, however, presents an issue for the trial court’s discretionary determination, subject to our review under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3445 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we may not substitute our judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=213977 - 2018-06-05

COURT OF APPEALS
Wis. 2d 426, ¶21. In reviewing discretionary decisions, our task is to determine whether a court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31791 - 2008-02-11

State v. Todd E. Crider
a windfall sentence credit without encountering the habitual offender enhanced penalty. Our decision today
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15465 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] 2025AP000999 - 2025-05-15 Court Order
SEDUCTION OF THE LAW 2 (1990). Entertaining these claims makes a mockery of our justice system, degrades
/sc/order/DisplayDocImage.pdf?docId=958692 - 2025-05-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
, and reiterated that other dates were available.2 Our 2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70326 - 2014-09-15

Sharon McCarten v. Troy Brenna
to grant relief reflects implicit adverse finding.). Thus, our review of the trial court's decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10147 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
with the circuit court that Trotter’s testimony is not sufficient to undermine our confidence in the outcome.[5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71362 - 2011-09-26

COURT OF APPEALS
merely offer alternative inferences that can be drawn from the evidence, contrary to our standard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36977 - 2009-06-29

[PDF] CA Blank Order
years of exposure). Our review of the record discloses no other potential issues for appeal
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=256741 - 2020-03-17