Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 44791 - 44800 of 62306 for child support.
Search results 44791 - 44800 of 62306 for child support.
State v. Patrick James
was engaged in criminal activity.[3] In deciding whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16133 - 2005-03-31
was engaged in criminal activity.[3] In deciding whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16133 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Raymond W. Lyght
is supported by two rationales. First, reasonable suspicion is an objective test. An officer’s mistaken
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17837 - 2017-09-21
is supported by two rationales. First, reasonable suspicion is an objective test. An officer’s mistaken
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17837 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI 96
representation of S.C. supported four counts of professional misconduct: Count One: By failing to file
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=42388 - 2014-09-15
representation of S.C. supported four counts of professional misconduct: Count One: By failing to file
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=42388 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
not consider Mr. Russell’s need to support his four children, high probability of rehabilitation, and co
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72328 - 2011-10-17
not consider Mr. Russell’s need to support his four children, high probability of rehabilitation, and co
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72328 - 2011-10-17
State v. Bill Paul Marquardt
was not sufficient to support probable cause. We remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=1232 - 2005-02-07
was not sufficient to support probable cause. We remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=1232 - 2005-02-07
State v. Bill P. Marquardt
was not sufficient to support probable cause. We remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=1231 - 2005-02-07
was not sufficient to support probable cause. We remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=1231 - 2005-02-07
[PDF]
NOTICE
of equitable estoppel are present, and no alternate view of the facts supports a contrary conclusion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31678 - 2014-09-15
of equitable estoppel are present, and no alternate view of the facts supports a contrary conclusion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31678 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
in support of their motion, the petitioners state that the petitioner[s’] driveway access is granted by deed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=147002 - 2017-09-21
in support of their motion, the petitioners state that the petitioner[s’] driveway access is granted by deed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=147002 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
)(a)4. (2009-10). Nonetheless, in support of this argument, the County asserts in its primary brief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107812 - 2017-09-21
)(a)4. (2009-10). Nonetheless, in support of this argument, the County asserts in its primary brief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107812 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
William J. Rhode v. The Town of Center
and does not argue in support of that part of the trial court's ruling. Consequently, we accept Rhode's
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9098 - 2017-09-19
and does not argue in support of that part of the trial court's ruling. Consequently, we accept Rhode's
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9098 - 2017-09-19