Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 41671 - 41680 of 77235 for j o e y s.
Search results 41671 - 41680 of 77235 for j o e y s.
COURT OF APPEALS
in this regard, stating, “[t]o be sure trial counsel did impeach Ms. Vela[z]quez’s testimony by bringing up
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=39257 - 2009-08-10
in this regard, stating, “[t]o be sure trial counsel did impeach Ms. Vela[z]quez’s testimony by bringing up
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=39257 - 2009-08-10
[PDF]
NOTICE
did. But he immediately further stated that “[o]bviously that has to be your main focus
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=57316 - 2014-09-15
did. But he immediately further stated that “[o]bviously that has to be your main focus
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=57316 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Terrance C. Harris
, V. TERRANCE C. HARRIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, LARRY D. HARRIS AND WILLIE O
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13602 - 2017-09-21
, V. TERRANCE C. HARRIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, LARRY D. HARRIS AND WILLIE O
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13602 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Terrance C. Harris
, V. TERRANCE C. HARRIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, LARRY D. HARRIS AND WILLIE O
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13441 - 2017-09-21
, V. TERRANCE C. HARRIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, LARRY D. HARRIS AND WILLIE O
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13441 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
,” § 2C.65 states in relevant part: [o]bstructions not actually within the roadway are sometimes so
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197369 - 2017-10-03
,” § 2C.65 states in relevant part: [o]bstructions not actually within the roadway are sometimes so
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197369 - 2017-10-03
State v. John Henry Balsewicz
decision. Id. at ¶44 (citations and footnotes omitted). ¶15 “In Wisconsin, ‘[n]o
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5253 - 2005-03-31
decision. Id. at ¶44 (citations and footnotes omitted). ¶15 “In Wisconsin, ‘[n]o
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5253 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
a qualified expert who would have offered such testimony.” Latorre responds on appeal that “[n]o authority
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101361 - 2013-08-26
a qualified expert who would have offered such testimony.” Latorre responds on appeal that “[n]o authority
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101361 - 2013-08-26
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
needed “[t]o stop [the State’s sentencing recommendation] from becoming even more outrageous
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=990100 - 2025-07-30
needed “[t]o stop [the State’s sentencing recommendation] from becoming even more outrageous
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=990100 - 2025-07-30
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
]o authority known to Latorre states that the factual allegations in the Post-Conviction Motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=101361 - 2017-09-21
]o authority known to Latorre states that the factual allegations in the Post-Conviction Motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=101361 - 2017-09-21
State v. Robert D. Keith
, the trial court ruled that the evidence was probative and relevant. “[O]bjections to the admissibility
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14920 - 2005-03-31
, the trial court ruled that the evidence was probative and relevant. “[O]bjections to the admissibility
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14920 - 2005-03-31