Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 39081 - 39090 of 69155 for he.
Search results 39081 - 39090 of 69155 for he.
State v. Marvin L. Hereford
. He appeals on these grounds: (1) the trial court misused its discretion and erred as a matter of law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7922 - 2005-03-31
. He appeals on these grounds: (1) the trial court misused its discretion and erred as a matter of law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7922 - 2005-03-31
Frontsheet
were "too vague," such that he could not plead for, or prepare a defense against, "when" the crimes
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=137997 - 2015-03-18
were "too vague," such that he could not plead for, or prepare a defense against, "when" the crimes
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=137997 - 2015-03-18
State v. Todd M. Jadowski
that on April 3, 2002, he had sexual intercourse with a person below the age of 16 in violation of Wis. Stat
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16788 - 2005-03-31
that on April 3, 2002, he had sexual intercourse with a person below the age of 16 in violation of Wis. Stat
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16788 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Frontsheet
2 alcohol concentration. He subsequently filed a request for a refusal hearing, but did
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98528 - 2017-09-21
2 alcohol concentration. He subsequently filed a request for a refusal hearing, but did
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98528 - 2017-09-21
Harold Sampson Children's Trust v. The Linda Gale Sampson 1979 Trust
the litigation before the trial court, Robert L. Elliott, Esq., while he was the plaintiffs’ attorney, turned
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5326 - 2005-03-31
the litigation before the trial court, Robert L. Elliott, Esq., while he was the plaintiffs’ attorney, turned
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5326 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Marvin L. Hereford
was convicted after a retrial following a mistrial. He appeals on these grounds: (1) the trial court misused
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7922 - 2017-09-19
was convicted after a retrial following a mistrial. He appeals on these grounds: (1) the trial court misused
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7922 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
to show that he was prejudiced by a failure to object. As to the prosecutor’s closing, we reject
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=307090 - 2020-11-24
to show that he was prejudiced by a failure to object. As to the prosecutor’s closing, we reject
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=307090 - 2020-11-24
[PDF]
Jeff S. Schmeling v. Richard J. Phelps
because: (1) his veto is a discretionary act for which he is immune from suit under § 893.80(4), STATS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11431 - 2017-09-19
because: (1) his veto is a discretionary act for which he is immune from suit under § 893.80(4), STATS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11431 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
incident, explaining that although L.A.T. had had issues with mental health in the past, he had never
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=609512 - 2023-01-11
incident, explaining that although L.A.T. had had issues with mental health in the past, he had never
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=609512 - 2023-01-11
Wendy Pero v. Donald Lucas
placement of his son William.[1] He argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25088 - 2006-06-27
placement of his son William.[1] He argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25088 - 2006-06-27