Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 47651 - 47660 of 50525 for our.
Search results 47651 - 47660 of 50525 for our.
Lynn Boxhorn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
. In reviewing damages awarded by a jury, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury, but rather
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7873 - 2005-03-31
. In reviewing damages awarded by a jury, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury, but rather
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7873 - 2005-03-31
Richland County v. P.G. Miron Company, Inc.
). While we have often referred to our standard of review of a trial court’s discretionary determinations
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12639 - 2005-03-31
). While we have often referred to our standard of review of a trial court’s discretionary determinations
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12639 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Calvin L. Collier
for mistrial is … granted. Our review of the record reveals the following. The State asked the victim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12980 - 2017-09-21
for mistrial is … granted. Our review of the record reveals the following. The State asked the victim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12980 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. STAT. § 752.35. We exercise our discretionary reversal power only in “exceptional cases.” State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=257706 - 2020-04-15
. STAT. § 752.35. We exercise our discretionary reversal power only in “exceptional cases.” State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=257706 - 2020-04-15
Jennifer L. Weston v. Matthew J. B.
for the plaintiff.[5] Implicit in the guardian ad litem’s argument is that our review of the evidence should also
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20999 - 2006-01-18
for the plaintiff.[5] Implicit in the guardian ad litem’s argument is that our review of the evidence should also
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20999 - 2006-01-18
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
witnessed Herrera “harm and [sic] of our children.” ¶22 In addition, Herrera’s motion included
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=654482 - 2023-05-09
witnessed Herrera “harm and [sic] of our children.” ¶22 In addition, Herrera’s motion included
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=654482 - 2023-05-09
COURT OF APPEALS
would assume that probably the majority of the difference in our scoring on this is the fact that I had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=106277 - 2014-01-06
would assume that probably the majority of the difference in our scoring on this is the fact that I had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=106277 - 2014-01-06
Christen Michaela Shannon v. United Services Automobile Association
. The disposition of this appeal is controlled by our discussion of the Commercial Union's appeal of the May 17
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7992 - 2005-03-31
. The disposition of this appeal is controlled by our discussion of the Commercial Union's appeal of the May 17
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7992 - 2005-03-31
Michael A. Yamat v. Verma L. B.
(1957).[2] Our review is limited to whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11258 - 2005-03-31
(1957).[2] Our review is limited to whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11258 - 2005-03-31
State v. Thomas D. Myers
to be interviewed. Myers does not elaborate on this claim and he did not raise it in the trial court. Our review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10115 - 2005-03-31
to be interviewed. Myers does not elaborate on this claim and he did not raise it in the trial court. Our review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10115 - 2005-03-31