Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 46881 - 46890 of 74828 for public records.
Search results 46881 - 46890 of 74828 for public records.
COURT OF APPEALS
in the motion are conclusory; or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the movant is not entitled
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58303 - 2010-12-27
in the motion are conclusory; or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the movant is not entitled
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58303 - 2010-12-27
Richard Winters v. Gary R. McCaughtry
is confined to the administrative record. Wis. Stat. § 227.57(1) (2001-02).[2] The court shall reverse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7471 - 2005-03-31
is confined to the administrative record. Wis. Stat. § 227.57(1) (2001-02).[2] The court shall reverse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7471 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
testimony is properly excluded. Next, we address the parties’ dispute about what the record shows
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=122956 - 2014-10-01
testimony is properly excluded. Next, we address the parties’ dispute about what the record shows
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=122956 - 2014-10-01
COURT OF APPEALS
ounces, of cocaine and outfitted him with an audio recording device.[2] Salinas then drove alone in his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=75723 - 2011-12-27
ounces, of cocaine and outfitted him with an audio recording device.[2] Salinas then drove alone in his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=75723 - 2011-12-27
State v. Eddie McAttee
into the record this portion of Officer Smith’s report: “Eddie McAttee was implicated by a co[]conspirator
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3149 - 2005-03-31
into the record this portion of Officer Smith’s report: “Eddie McAttee was implicated by a co[]conspirator
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3149 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
is not part of the record on appeal, and we therefore assume it supports the trial court’s decision.[6] See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=65083 - 2011-05-31
is not part of the record on appeal, and we therefore assume it supports the trial court’s decision.[6] See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=65083 - 2011-05-31
COURT OF APPEALS
uncontested factual record of this case, we agree. ¶18 We begin the analysis by noting that this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=57084 - 2010-11-23
uncontested factual record of this case, we agree. ¶18 We begin the analysis by noting that this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=57084 - 2010-11-23
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the courtroom. ¶10 After the jury was dismissed, the trial court made a record of the sidebar objection
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=211718 - 2018-05-01
the courtroom. ¶10 After the jury was dismissed, the trial court made a record of the sidebar objection
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=211718 - 2018-05-01
Jay W. Smith v. Paul Katz
in the record provides coverage. We conclude that because the alleged property damage took place at some point
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17135 - 2005-03-31
in the record provides coverage. We conclude that because the alleged property damage took place at some point
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17135 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
, and the court also heard trial testimony by witnesses for both parties. While we have only a limited record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=99052 - 2013-07-09
, and the court also heard trial testimony by witnesses for both parties. While we have only a limited record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=99052 - 2013-07-09