Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 50121 - 50130 of 57894 for id.
Search results 50121 - 50130 of 57894 for id.
COURT OF APPEALS
the Haseltine rule. See id., ¶¶25-27 (no Haseltine violation when a detective testified that he believed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=133343 - 2015-01-21
the Haseltine rule. See id., ¶¶25-27 (no Haseltine violation when a detective testified that he believed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=133343 - 2015-01-21
COURT OF APPEALS
an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 310; Nelson v. State, 54 Wis. 2d 489, 497, 195 N.W.2d 629 (1972). However
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33898 - 2008-09-02
an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 310; Nelson v. State, 54 Wis. 2d 489, 497, 195 N.W.2d 629 (1972). However
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33898 - 2008-09-02
COURT OF APPEALS
was violated and he, therefore, is entitled to be resentenced. Id., No. 02-1330-CR, unpublished slip op. at 3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28828 - 2007-06-26
was violated and he, therefore, is entitled to be resentenced. Id., No. 02-1330-CR, unpublished slip op. at 3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28828 - 2007-06-26
State v. Christopher L. Combs
hearing on a discharge petition. Id. at 437. Although § 980.02(2)(a) does not assign a burden
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20655 - 2005-12-14
hearing on a discharge petition. Id. at 437. Although § 980.02(2)(a) does not assign a burden
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20655 - 2005-12-14
State v. Frederick W. Prager
of heart by the sentencing court is not a new factor supporting resentencing. See id. Further
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17633 - 2005-05-24
of heart by the sentencing court is not a new factor supporting resentencing. See id. Further
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17633 - 2005-05-24
State v. John E. Olson
standards. Id. These standards apply to a trial court’s discretionary decision to admit a summary chart
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11160 - 2005-03-31
standards. Id. These standards apply to a trial court’s discretionary decision to admit a summary chart
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11160 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
, but were a pretext for discrimination.” Id. at 1169-70 (citations omitted). ¶19 The Nunnerys appear
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=86571 - 2013-07-30
, but were a pretext for discrimination.” Id. at 1169-70 (citations omitted). ¶19 The Nunnerys appear
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=86571 - 2013-07-30
David Barlow v. Board of Police and Fire Commissioners of the City of Madison
, among others, rule 51, which prohibits conduct that would bring the fire department into disrepute. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20207 - 2010-08-11
, among others, rule 51, which prohibits conduct that would bring the fire department into disrepute. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20207 - 2010-08-11
[PDF]
Omnibus Amended Original Action Petition
, secondarily, this court.” Id. at ¶17. 21. Thus, redistricting is initially a state matter both
/courts/supreme/origact/docs/omniamendorigactionpet.pdf - 2021-10-21
, secondarily, this court.” Id. at ¶17. 21. Thus, redistricting is initially a state matter both
/courts/supreme/origact/docs/omniamendorigactionpet.pdf - 2021-10-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the required consideration. Id. We rejected this argument, explaining that we apply “a presumption
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70385 - 2014-09-15
the required consideration. Id. We rejected this argument, explaining that we apply “a presumption
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70385 - 2014-09-15