Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 41131 - 41140 of 58506 for speedy trial.
Search results 41131 - 41140 of 58506 for speedy trial.
[PDF]
State v. Raphael Perry
J I—CRIMINAL 400. ¶4 The following facts were adduced at trial. The police entered
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15101 - 2017-09-21
J I—CRIMINAL 400. ¶4 The following facts were adduced at trial. The police entered
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15101 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
husband, Roland Krueger. At trial, Sarah Johnson testified that she knew Krueger and Roland for several
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143666 - 2005-03-31
husband, Roland Krueger. At trial, Sarah Johnson testified that she knew Krueger and Roland for several
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143666 - 2005-03-31
Kathryn R. Fleming v. Dean P. Fleming
was too indirect, self-serving, and after-the-fact to overcome the presumption. We disagree. A trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26592 - 2006-09-27
was too indirect, self-serving, and after-the-fact to overcome the presumption. We disagree. A trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26592 - 2006-09-27
State v. Dallas D. Lucas
any rationale justifying such consecutive and lengthy sentences. He explains: The trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7105 - 2014-02-16
any rationale justifying such consecutive and lengthy sentences. He explains: The trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7105 - 2014-02-16
COURT OF APPEALS
arguments in support of his motion to suppress. We uphold the trial court’s denial of the motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30941 - 2007-11-20
arguments in support of his motion to suppress. We uphold the trial court’s denial of the motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30941 - 2007-11-20
Conrad L. Aichele and Amanda L. Aichele v. Clark County
the trial court’s determination that the County was immune from suit. BACKGROUND ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15973 - 2005-03-31
the trial court’s determination that the County was immune from suit. BACKGROUND ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15973 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
and knowingly entered. Except as discussed below, we agree with the assessment that the trial court engaged
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103520 - 2005-10-29
and knowingly entered. Except as discussed below, we agree with the assessment that the trial court engaged
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103520 - 2005-10-29
COURT OF APPEALS
no witnesses or new evidence at the court trial. The sole witness was Hollida Wakefield, appointed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84949 - 2012-07-17
no witnesses or new evidence at the court trial. The sole witness was Hollida Wakefield, appointed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84949 - 2012-07-17
COURT OF APPEALS
standards “just as the trial court applied those standards.” Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60798 - 2011-03-07
standards “just as the trial court applied those standards.” Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60798 - 2011-03-07
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
and, if so, whether there are any material facts in dispute that would entitle the opposing party to trial
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=93274 - 2014-09-15
and, if so, whether there are any material facts in dispute that would entitle the opposing party to trial
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=93274 - 2014-09-15