Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 39861 - 39870 of 63360 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 39861 - 39870 of 63360 for Motion for joint custody.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
-motion for partial summary judgment, contending that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=152778 - 2017-09-21
-motion for partial summary judgment, contending that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=152778 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
North Central Companies, Inc. v. D & D Properties
the judgment. Because we grant D & D’s motion for reasonable attorney fees, we remand for a determination
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2806 - 2017-09-19
the judgment. Because we grant D & D’s motion for reasonable attorney fees, we remand for a determination
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2806 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
denying his post-commitment motion. On appeal, Birkett argues that he received ineffective assistance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=124592 - 2014-10-15
denying his post-commitment motion. On appeal, Birkett argues that he received ineffective assistance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=124592 - 2014-10-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
battery. ¶7 Rolack subsequently filed a postconviction motion alleging that the State withheld
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=39043 - 2014-09-15
battery. ¶7 Rolack subsequently filed a postconviction motion alleging that the State withheld
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=39043 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Eller Media, Inc v. State of Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals
the DHA to review the removal order. On June 23, 2000, the DHA granted the DOT’s motion for summary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3434 - 2017-09-19
the DHA to review the removal order. On June 23, 2000, the DHA granted the DOT’s motion for summary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3434 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
motion.[1] The issues are whether the trial court imposed an unduly harsh sentence, and whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35637 - 2009-02-23
motion.[1] The issues are whether the trial court imposed an unduly harsh sentence, and whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35637 - 2009-02-23
State v. Keith L. Allen
Allen concerning adjournments, his belief that Allen was guilty, and his refusal to file motions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10642 - 2005-03-31
Allen concerning adjournments, his belief that Allen was guilty, and his refusal to file motions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10642 - 2005-03-31
North Central Companies, Inc. v. D & D Properties
supports the trial court’s decision, we affirm the judgment. Because we grant D & D’s motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2806 - 2005-03-31
supports the trial court’s decision, we affirm the judgment. Because we grant D & D’s motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2806 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. Based upon our review of the briefs
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=357946 - 2021-04-20
that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. Based upon our review of the briefs
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=357946 - 2021-04-20
State v. Mark R. Petersen
to the search and denied Petersen’s motion to suppress. ¶8 The standard of review on appeal in consent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3897 - 2005-03-31
to the search and denied Petersen’s motion to suppress. ¶8 The standard of review on appeal in consent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3897 - 2005-03-31