Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 4821 - 4830 of 83820 for simple case search/1000.
Search results 4821 - 4830 of 83820 for simple case search/1000.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
reverse the decision of the circuit court. ¶2 In June 2016, Rivera and P.P., the victim in this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=235079 - 2019-02-20
reverse the decision of the circuit court. ¶2 In June 2016, Rivera and P.P., the victim in this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=235079 - 2019-02-20
[PDF]
State v. Douglas J. Miller
a search warrant before submitting his blood sample for testing. We reject Miller’s argument. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3659 - 2017-09-19
a search warrant before submitting his blood sample for testing. We reject Miller’s argument. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3659 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
the trial court’s denial of her suppression motion. Kostuck-Hass contends that the search warrant leading
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=135364 - 2015-02-24
the trial court’s denial of her suppression motion. Kostuck-Hass contends that the search warrant leading
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=135364 - 2015-02-24
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
motion. Kostuck-Hass contends that the search warrant leading to the discovery of contraband in her
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=135364 - 2017-09-21
motion. Kostuck-Hass contends that the search warrant leading to the discovery of contraband in her
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=135364 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
conclude that this case is appropriate for summary disposition, and we summarily affirm the judgment
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=592853 - 2022-11-22
conclude that this case is appropriate for summary disposition, and we summarily affirm the judgment
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=592853 - 2022-11-22
COURT OF APPEALS
, as it was in this case, for “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74264 - 2011-11-22
, as it was in this case, for “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74264 - 2011-11-22
State v. Benjamin L. Stewart
responded, “We don't have to have a search warrant on cases like this.” He then testified that he said “I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8917 - 2005-03-31
responded, “We don't have to have a search warrant on cases like this.” He then testified that he said “I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8917 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Benjamin L. Stewart
have to have a search warrant on cases like this.” He then testified that he said “I am not going
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8917 - 2017-09-19
have to have a search warrant on cases like this.” He then testified that he said “I am not going
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8917 - 2017-09-19
Frontsheet
may be seized." Id. (citation omitted). ¶42 The DeSmidt case dealt with "whether the search of Dr
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33001 - 2008-06-09
may be seized." Id. (citation omitted). ¶42 The DeSmidt case dealt with "whether the search of Dr
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33001 - 2008-06-09
[PDF]
WI 59
). ¶35 LaCount argues that the search and seizure in the present case violated the prohibition
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33001 - 2014-09-15
). ¶35 LaCount argues that the search and seizure in the present case violated the prohibition
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33001 - 2014-09-15