Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 4231 - 4240 of 58458 for speedy trial.
Search results 4231 - 4240 of 58458 for speedy trial.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
(“OWI”) and the denial of his pre-trial motions for a directed verdict
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=936463 - 2025-04-03
(“OWI”) and the denial of his pre-trial motions for a directed verdict
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=936463 - 2025-04-03
State v. Randolph P. Haushalter
of an intoxicant (OWI), contrary to § 346.63(1)(a), Stats. Haushalter argues that the trial court erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15125 - 2005-03-31
of an intoxicant (OWI), contrary to § 346.63(1)(a), Stats. Haushalter argues that the trial court erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15125 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Randolph P. Haushalter
-CR 2 STATS. Haushalter argues that the trial court erred in interpreting the penalty
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15123 - 2017-09-21
-CR 2 STATS. Haushalter argues that the trial court erred in interpreting the penalty
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15123 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
-12). 1 He contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress physical
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=150640 - 2017-09-21
-12). 1 He contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress physical
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=150640 - 2017-09-21
State v. Randolph P. Haushalter
of an intoxicant (OWI), contrary to § 346.63(1)(a), Stats. Haushalter argues that the trial court erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15124 - 2005-03-31
of an intoxicant (OWI), contrary to § 346.63(1)(a), Stats. Haushalter argues that the trial court erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15124 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Steven C. Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.
, 677 N.W.2d 233. Tietsworth contends first, that the trial court erred in concluding that under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20569 - 2017-09-21
, 677 N.W.2d 233. Tietsworth contends first, that the trial court erred in concluding that under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20569 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Michael R. Cooper
Cooper also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion for a new trial, claiming
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5586 - 2017-09-19
Cooper also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion for a new trial, claiming
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5586 - 2017-09-19
State v. Roger P. Barber
.[1] He also appeals from the trial court’s orders denying his motions for postconviction relief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13447 - 2005-03-31
.[1] He also appeals from the trial court’s orders denying his motions for postconviction relief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13447 - 2005-03-31
State v. Steven Buckingham
, Stats.[1] Buckingham also appeals from the trial court’s order denying his postconviction motions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12409 - 2005-03-31
, Stats.[1] Buckingham also appeals from the trial court’s order denying his postconviction motions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12409 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
. § 948.22(2) is ambiguous, and that, as a result, the jury was improperly instructed at trial, entitling
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=40739 - 2014-09-15
. § 948.22(2) is ambiguous, and that, as a result, the jury was improperly instructed at trial, entitling
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=40739 - 2014-09-15