Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 40531 - 40540 of 69380 for as he.
Search results 40531 - 40540 of 69380 for as he.
CA Blank Order
, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel provided Blue with a copy of the report, he responded to it, and counsel
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=96518 - 2013-05-05
, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel provided Blue with a copy of the report, he responded to it, and counsel
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=96518 - 2013-05-05
State v. Jeremy J. Ramirez
).[1] He contends that as a matter of law, the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6360 - 2005-03-31
).[1] He contends that as a matter of law, the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6360 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
his sentence and from an order denying his motion to reconsider. He challenges a DNA surcharge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44169 - 2009-12-07
his sentence and from an order denying his motion to reconsider. He challenges a DNA surcharge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44169 - 2009-12-07
COURT OF APPEALS
to a hearing on his discharge petition. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=105570 - 2013-12-11
to a hearing on his discharge petition. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=105570 - 2013-12-11
William B. Burke v. Patricia L. Burke
on sales. At trial, he argued that his income would be substantially reduced from previous years because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15459 - 2005-03-31
on sales. At trial, he argued that his income would be substantially reduced from previous years because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15459 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
of the evidence to support the conviction and argues that he was denied his right to a public trial. Based upon
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103700 - 2013-11-06
of the evidence to support the conviction and argues that he was denied his right to a public trial. Based upon
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103700 - 2013-11-06
CA Blank Order
to plea withdrawal on the ground that he was not formally arraigned in case No. 2012CF577. We agree
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101774 - 2013-09-09
to plea withdrawal on the ground that he was not formally arraigned in case No. 2012CF577. We agree
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101774 - 2013-09-09
Milwaukee County v. Robert E. Berry
a motor vehicle while intoxicated, contrary to § 346.63(1)(a), Stats. He claims: (1) that the road
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14922 - 2005-03-31
a motor vehicle while intoxicated, contrary to § 346.63(1)(a), Stats. He claims: (1) that the road
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14922 - 2005-03-31
State v. Todd A. Imme
(as he does on appeal) that his prior OWI offenses were an element of the charge as the statutes lower
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11320 - 2005-03-31
(as he does on appeal) that his prior OWI offenses were an element of the charge as the statutes lower
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11320 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
that the issues “are all issues he could have raised in response to counsel’s no merit report.” Because Ellis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92348 - 2013-02-04
that the issues “are all issues he could have raised in response to counsel’s no merit report.” Because Ellis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92348 - 2013-02-04