Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 39321 - 39330 of 61720 for does.

COURT OF APPEALS
does not adhere to the percentage standard, it must articulate the reasoning underpinning the decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=40065 - 2009-09-01

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 27, 2007 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court o...
” if the pleading defendant does not know the presumptive minimum sentence he or she faces. See State v. Mohr, 201
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28566 - 2007-03-26

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
No. 2025AP1907 5 disagreed, concluding that the statute “does not impose a county-specific limitation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1036240 - 2025-11-10

[PDF] Michael Hook v. William A. Bonner and Judith L. Bonner
of law coverage does not exist for the alleged misrepresentations. It further concluded that liability
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5538 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] CA Blank Order
sentences on each count). This phrase does not unequivocally mean one or rule out the other
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=290699 - 2020-09-23

COURT OF APPEALS
does not contest that the jurors who sat on the jury were anything but impartial, the State asserts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34596 - 2008-11-12

[PDF] County of Adams v. Daniel M. Ciesla
instruction on entrapment if the evidence does not reasonably require it. See State v. Schuman, 226 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15461 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Ann M. Zutz v. Gregory S. Zutz
, § 250. Gregory's argument, however, does not concern these changes. 2 The agreement originally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10714 - 2017-09-20

COURT OF APPEALS
. The stipulation in this case does not constitute a withdrawal of the demand for a jury trial on an element
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=66812 - 2011-06-27

Wood County Department of Human Services v. Denise F. R.
), the statutory list of specific circumstances does not proscribe all other grounds for extending time deadlines
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4815 - 2005-03-31