Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 41481 - 41490 of 67826 for law.

[PDF] Village of Twin Lakes v. Donald F. Hansen
of law, which we review without deference to the circuit court. See State v. Babbitt, 188 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16234 - 2017-09-21

State v. David G. Huusko
of knowledge of salient law or facts in order to show that counsel’s actions were the result of incompetence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26441 - 2006-09-11

State v. James M. Duncan
insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of fact, acting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14115 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
.2d 694. Both deficient performance and prejudice present mixed questions of fact and law. Id. We
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=535120 - 2022-06-22

[PDF] State v. J.B. Franklin, Jr.
a defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de novo. However, if the motion fails
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10145 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
thought a new sentencing law was about to be passed that might benefit him; and that he wanted family
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=65380 - 2014-09-15

State v. Gary L. Klotz
in the law that evidence not discovered until after trial does not affect the outcome. Taylor v. Illinois
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5188 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
and prejudice components of the ineffectiveness inquiry are mixed questions of law and fact.” Strickland v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=142619 - 2015-06-02

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
for good cause shown,” applies here. While unsuitability ultimately is a question of law that we review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=189106 - 2017-09-21

Suzanne Schuck v. The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
is a matter of contract interpretation and, therefore, a question of law that we review de novo. Williams v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8885 - 2005-03-31