Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 39491 - 39500 of 50521 for our.
Search results 39491 - 39500 of 50521 for our.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
Mootness of a legal action or issue presents a question of law for our de novo review. See PRN Assocs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=252355 - 2020-01-14
Mootness of a legal action or issue presents a question of law for our de novo review. See PRN Assocs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=252355 - 2020-01-14
[PDF]
NOTICE
in our consideration of Burns’s alleged reason (ineffective assistance) for failing to previously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32547 - 2014-09-15
in our consideration of Burns’s alleged reason (ineffective assistance) for failing to previously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32547 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Rickey Eugene Pinkard
from whom he received them satisfies this definition. ¶11 Our conclusion is consistent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19522 - 2017-09-21
from whom he received them satisfies this definition. ¶11 Our conclusion is consistent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19522 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Mark Grebner v. Sharon Schiebel
. § 19.35(1)(b). Statutory interpretation is a question of law and is subject to our de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2680 - 2017-09-19
. § 19.35(1)(b). Statutory interpretation is a question of law and is subject to our de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2680 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
afforded a strong presumption of reasonability, and if our review reveals that discretion was properly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=123855 - 2017-09-21
afforded a strong presumption of reasonability, and if our review reveals that discretion was properly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=123855 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
an “unrealistically high threshold” for proper requests. We do not agree. Rather, our conclusion requires
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=64700 - 2014-09-15
an “unrealistically high threshold” for proper requests. We do not agree. Rather, our conclusion requires
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=64700 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. We agree with the circuit court that Trotter’s testimony is not sufficient to undermine our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=71362 - 2014-09-15
. We agree with the circuit court that Trotter’s testimony is not sufficient to undermine our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=71362 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Tracy Berginz-Graef v. Stephanie E. Lamon
. 1991). Our review is limited to determining whether the trial court erroneously exercised
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11481 - 2017-09-19
. 1991). Our review is limited to determining whether the trial court erroneously exercised
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11481 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
to resentencing based on the ineffective assistance of his trial and postconviction counsel. Based upon our
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=428413 - 2021-09-21
to resentencing based on the ineffective assistance of his trial and postconviction counsel. Based upon our
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=428413 - 2021-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
to appear or file an answer was for good cause” because the judgment “was entered after our appearance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194671 - 2017-09-21
to appear or file an answer was for good cause” because the judgment “was entered after our appearance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194671 - 2017-09-21