Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 4841 - 4850 of 43121 for t o.

State v. Pablo Cruz Santana
consider the rights of the public and that “[t]he public does not want people going around stabbing others
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12747 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Pablo Cruz Santana
of the stabbing. The court also noted that it must consider the rights of the public and that “[t]he public
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12747 - 2017-09-21

James Turner. v. David H. Schwarz
“[T]he review process for both probation and parole revocation is identical.” State ex rel. Macemon v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13897 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 20, 2022 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=603164 - 2022-12-20

[PDF] State v. Kelcey X. Nelson
-CR 6 ¶11 In Pulizzano, the supreme court concluded: [T]o establish a constitutional right
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15959 - 2017-09-21

WI App 91 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2013AP1944 Complete Title ...
values for any of the years at issue. … [T]he City has followed the requirements of the law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=119650 - 2014-09-23

CA Blank Order
concerned that Moore “r[an] into the kitchen and g[o]t a knife” when “there [were] other options, other
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=100494 - 2013-08-04

[PDF] James Turner. v. David H. Schwarz
DISCUSSION “[T]he review process for both probation and parole revocation is identical.” State ex rel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13897 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 19, 2022 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=546177 - 2022-07-19

[PDF] State v. Touissant Larone Harley
and that his actions were reckless, negligent, careless, and foolish. As the supreme court explained: [T]o
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8267 - 2017-09-19