Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 45871 - 45880 of 82937 for simple case.

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 17, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of A...
). After disagreeing with appointed counsel’s assessment of his case, McPhetridge insisted on proceeding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26823 - 2006-10-16

COURT OF APPEALS
and it was not confusing. Allen told the circuit court he “had a sufficient opportunity to thoroughly discuss the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=65782 - 2011-06-13

[PDF] NOTICE
criminally charged, and that his defense both in that case and in the civil case was that he acted in self
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36192 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Outagamie County Board of Adjustment
the case for further proceedings in light of its decisions in State ex rel. Ziervogel v. Washington
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6306 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED April 9, 2013 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appea...
instructions you mentioned something about the defendant is presumed innocent. In civil cases, in civil
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=95202 - 2013-04-08

COURT OF APPEALS
). ¶7 This case is very similar to Martinez. In that case, Martinez was on probation when his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107360 - 2014-01-28

COURT OF APPEALS
, withdrew his request for a trial de novo and stipulated that the court decide the case based
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50828 - 2010-06-09

97-06 ORDERED effective January 1, 2000, SCR 20:3.6(a),(c),(c)(1),(c)3),(c)(7) are amended; 20:3.6(d)and (e) are created, and the Comment to 20:3.6 is amended. FURTHER ORDERED proposed amendment of SCR 20:3.8, is denied.
rules is amended to read: 20:3.6(c)(7) (intro.) In a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1
/sc/scord/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=999 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
[CUMIS] or [IRA] as [CUMIS]’s representative in a collection case, [IRA] would request that [CUMIS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=163873 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS
, not counsel; a mental disease or defect plea was a reasonable option in this case; counsel did not inform Hunt
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=70955 - 2011-09-14