Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 43191 - 43200 of 68527 for did.
Search results 43191 - 43200 of 68527 for did.
State v. Jesse E. Voss
of his refusal by letter mailed on July 5, 1995. For some unknown reason, the clerk did not receive
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9737 - 2005-03-31
of his refusal by letter mailed on July 5, 1995. For some unknown reason, the clerk did not receive
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9737 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
surcharges under WIS. STAT. § 973.046(1r), a provision which did not take effect until after Sanders
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=155570 - 2017-09-21
surcharges under WIS. STAT. § 973.046(1r), a provision which did not take effect until after Sanders
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=155570 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. Leaver filed a letter and supporting documents in response to Summit’s complaint. However, he did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=936082 - 2025-04-03
. Leaver filed a letter and supporting documents in response to Summit’s complaint. However, he did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=936082 - 2025-04-03
State v. Patrick C. Webster
exercised its sentencing discretion because it did not first explain its reasons for imposing the maximum
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13366 - 2005-03-31
exercised its sentencing discretion because it did not first explain its reasons for imposing the maximum
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13366 - 2005-03-31
State v. Leroy Bryant
and Iris testified at the suppression hearing. Margaret testified that Bryant did not live at her house
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14243 - 2005-03-31
and Iris testified at the suppression hearing. Margaret testified that Bryant did not live at her house
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14243 - 2005-03-31
State v. Patrick C. Webster
exercised its sentencing discretion because it did not first explain its reasons for imposing the maximum
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13370 - 2005-03-31
exercised its sentencing discretion because it did not first explain its reasons for imposing the maximum
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13370 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
against Neumeier for damages. The circuit court concluded that claim preclusion did not apply because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=58651 - 2014-09-15
against Neumeier for damages. The circuit court concluded that claim preclusion did not apply because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=58651 - 2014-09-15
State v. Estella Marie Iddings
of certain occurrences, such conflicts did not render her testimony incredible as a matter of law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11451 - 2005-03-31
of certain occurrences, such conflicts did not render her testimony incredible as a matter of law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11451 - 2005-03-31
State v. Michael D.J. Crochiere
or inspection, and did not move to suppress Crochiere's inculpatory statements. He also challenges
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9588 - 2005-03-31
or inspection, and did not move to suppress Crochiere's inculpatory statements. He also challenges
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9588 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
the Department did not receive a copy of a temporary injunction; and (3) the court erroneously failed to apply
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69374 - 2011-08-08
the Department did not receive a copy of a temporary injunction; and (3) the court erroneously failed to apply
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69374 - 2011-08-08