Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 39941 - 39950 of 59281 for SMALL CLAIMS.

State v. John R. Holsonback
other’s references to the allegations of the complaint, nor does Holsonback now claim that those
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26005 - 2006-07-31

09AP1034 Sheboygan County DHHS v. Vincent E K.doc
, or failing to object to an error for strategic reasons and later claiming that the error is grounds
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=51990 - 2010-07-13

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 7, 2007 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court...
brakes, almost causing the officer to run into her, as a response to his tailgating—which she claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28030 - 2007-02-06

[PDF] CA Blank Order
the issue and Boyer follows up in his reply brief, we deem the claim abandoned. See State v. Chu, 2002 WI
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149022 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
As Beauchamp acknowledges in his briefs on appeal, the success of his claims turns on whether Juror 508’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=164835 - 2017-09-21

State v. Scott H. Petersen
that his trial counsel ineffectively represented him. He bases his claim on the fact that his attorney did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12154 - 2005-03-31

Jacqueline M. L. v. Korey D. S.
D.S. appeals from an order vacating a paternity judgment against him.[1] Korey claims he was entitled
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14782 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
primary physical placement and ordering him to pay child support. We reject David’s claims that the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103113 - 2013-10-22

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
between his burglary and the victim’s claimed $4000-loss of two necklaces. We agree, so we reverse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=131978 - 2017-09-21

State v. Kim D. Tesky
. The reason you can be imprisoned up to three years is because they claim that, due to prior convictions, you
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11185 - 2005-03-31