Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 46141 - 46150 of 68502 for did.

[PDF] Travis E. C. v. Carl C.
, the trial court in its oral decision did not address the guardian ad litem's principal argument
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7743 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] NOTICE
counsel read a statement from Nava stating he was “sorry that this has happened” and that he did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34936 - 2014-09-15

State v. Michael Vines
Vines challenges the habitual criminality enhancer of his sentence. He maintains that the State did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9906 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Must a judge who formerly was the corporation counsel in charge of the county's child support agency recuse himself or herself in child support cases?
. The corporation counsel's name did not appear on any pleadings or motions, nor did the corporation counsel
/sc/judcond/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=877 - 2017-09-20

State v. Luke C. Anderson
, the court’s use of the term “sexual contact” to describe this slight penetration did not confuse the issue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20861 - 2006-01-09

[PDF] State v. Henry James Brookshire
was proper and that the sentencing court did not violate Brookshire’s constitutional rights. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18306 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] CA Blank Order
was unrelated to the armed robbery charge, and therefore did not satisfy the statutory joinder criteria. We
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=162286 - 2017-09-21

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William F. Mross
: Dissented: Not Participating: WILCOX, J., did not participate. Attorneys: 2003
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16690 - 2005-03-31

State v. Ismet D. Divanovic
advised the court that Divanovic did not authorize his representation. Despite counsel's misgivings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7834 - 2005-03-31

Steven W. Gradeless v. Beverly Gradeless
it could be argued that Donna did not have a reasonable opportunity to challenge her divorce from Harmon
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6712 - 2005-03-31