Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 39601 - 39610 of 58492 for speedy trial.

WI App 14 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2013AP2323 Complete Title of...
. At the 2013 trial, the jury awarded Johnson over $400,000 in damages and found that he was twenty percent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=132765 - 2015-02-24

Frontsheet
of a trial would affect her pregnancy, and that her plea was therefore involuntary. ¶3 We determine
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29462 - 2007-06-20

Louis Fuller, Sr. v. Mid-City Auto Salvage & Parts
) appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding money damages to Louis Fuller, Sr., in his claim arising out
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7342 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] NOTICE
of William’s nominee, Charles. Because we conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=49113 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Louis Fuller, Sr. v. Mid-City Auto Salvage & Parts
) appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding money damages to Louis Fuller, Sr., in his claim arising out
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7342 - 2017-09-20

CA Blank Order
. Following a small claims trial, the circuit court issued a thorough decision, detailing all of the evidence
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=115636 - 2014-06-30

[PDF] Douglas County v. Florence S.
deprives the trial court of competency to proceed. Due process is a flexible concept and not static
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10598 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] Robert L. Haack v. James Stephens
incurred while litigating a deed reformation claim against a third party, Mary Leader. The trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13345 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS
of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Because we conclude the motion was procedurally barred, we affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104696 - 2013-11-25

State v. Daniel J. Frank
maintains that the trial court erred, but now concedes that his argument must be rejected by this court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16243 - 2005-03-31