Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 40001 - 40010 of 63985 for records/1000.
Search results 40001 - 40010 of 63985 for records/1000.
COURT OF APPEALS
its sentencing discretion. Id. at 5–6. After an independent review of the record and consideration
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30037 - 2007-08-20
its sentencing discretion. Id. at 5–6. After an independent review of the record and consideration
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30037 - 2007-08-20
State v. James A. Jackson
. The record belies this argument. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8682 - 2005-03-31
. The record belies this argument. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8682 - 2005-03-31
Frontsheet
to a client concerning receipt of funds belonging to the client; failing to keep a complete record of trust
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71180 - 2011-09-19
to a client concerning receipt of funds belonging to the client; failing to keep a complete record of trust
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71180 - 2011-09-19
CA Blank Order
of the record, we conclude that the judgment may be summarily affirmed because there is no arguable merit to any
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=119151 - 2014-08-12
of the record, we conclude that the judgment may be summarily affirmed because there is no arguable merit to any
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=119151 - 2014-08-12
COURT OF APPEALS
recording of the event and in part on disputed testimony, the findings remain subject to the clearly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107042 - 2014-01-21
recording of the event and in part on disputed testimony, the findings remain subject to the clearly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107042 - 2014-01-21
Gerald F. Houtakker v. Carol Carew
. 1983). In reviewing whether the trial court clearly erred, we must examine the record "`not for facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9899 - 2005-03-31
. 1983). In reviewing whether the trial court clearly erred, we must examine the record "`not for facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9899 - 2005-03-31
John Bularz v. Paul Hinkfuss
judgment, independently examining the record to determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6176 - 2005-03-31
judgment, independently examining the record to determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6176 - 2005-03-31
State v. Bobbie M.
, she has not shown that any are not supported by evidence in the record. Additionally, Bobbie M. has
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4931 - 2005-03-31
, she has not shown that any are not supported by evidence in the record. Additionally, Bobbie M. has
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4931 - 2005-03-31
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joan M. Boyd
contained certain facts that the OLR asserted were not facts of record. The referee agreed, whereupon
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24677 - 2006-03-29
contained certain facts that the OLR asserted were not facts of record. The referee agreed, whereupon
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24677 - 2006-03-29
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
-CR 3 unjustifiable basis for the sentence in the record.” State v. Wickstrom, 118 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=79225 - 2014-09-15
-CR 3 unjustifiable basis for the sentence in the record.” State v. Wickstrom, 118 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=79225 - 2014-09-15