Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 50321 - 50330 of 55817 for n y c.
Search results 50321 - 50330 of 55817 for n y c.
State v. Emmett White
. c. Counsel’s Decision Not to Impeach Two Prosecution
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10472 - 2005-03-31
. c. Counsel’s Decision Not to Impeach Two Prosecution
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10472 - 2005-03-31
State v. Thomas W. Koeppen
or threat, attempts to prevent the officer from taking him or her into custody. (c) While acting under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15136 - 2005-03-31
or threat, attempts to prevent the officer from taking him or her into custody. (c) While acting under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15136 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Order of Protection
) Engages in an act that would constitute child abuse under §48.02(1); or (c) Sexual assault under §940.225
/formdisplay/CV-406_hmn.pdf?formNumber=CV-406&formType=Form&formatId=2&language=hmn - 2019-07-29
) Engages in an act that would constitute child abuse under §48.02(1); or (c) Sexual assault under §940.225
/formdisplay/CV-406_hmn.pdf?formNumber=CV-406&formType=Form&formatId=2&language=hmn - 2019-07-29
2010 WI APP 14
the Perales rule. See Wis. Stat. § 799.209(2) (stating that “[a]n essential finding of fact may not be based
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44822 - 2010-01-26
the Perales rule. See Wis. Stat. § 799.209(2) (stating that “[a]n essential finding of fact may not be based
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44822 - 2010-01-26
[PDF]
State v. Michael S. Behnken
a repeater now. MR. BEHNKEN: I understand that.” The supreme court noted in Liebnitz that “[n]either
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3287 - 2017-09-19
a repeater now. MR. BEHNKEN: I understand that.” The supreme court noted in Liebnitz that “[n]either
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3287 - 2017-09-19
Town of Port Washington v. City of Port Washington
facts. See id. at 682-83 & n.2. ¶5 The Town’s first argument is that the petition for direct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2730 - 2005-03-31
facts. See id. at 682-83 & n.2. ¶5 The Town’s first argument is that the petition for direct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2730 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Certification
(Ind. 2014); State v. Null, 386 N.W.2d 41 (Iowa 2013); State v. Zuber, 152 A.3d 197 (N. J. 2017
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=209411 - 2018-03-06
(Ind. 2014); State v. Null, 386 N.W.2d 41 (Iowa 2013); State v. Zuber, 152 A.3d 197 (N. J. 2017
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=209411 - 2018-03-06
State v. Anthony J. Dentici, Jr.
test to determine when an offender is in “custody” pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.155: “[A]n offender’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4110 - 2005-03-31
test to determine when an offender is in “custody” pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.155: “[A]n offender’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4110 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Andrew B. Collette
specifically allows a court to consider a “read-in” charge in the sentencing decision. Id. at 126-27 n.4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3645 - 2017-09-19
specifically allows a court to consider a “read-in” charge in the sentencing decision. Id. at 126-27 n.4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3645 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Jimmie Davison
Wis. 2d 282, 284 n.2, 322 N.W.2d 264 (1982). ¶13 In this case, as in State v. Hubbard, 206 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3768 - 2017-09-19
Wis. 2d 282, 284 n.2, 322 N.W.2d 264 (1982). ¶13 In this case, as in State v. Hubbard, 206 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3768 - 2017-09-19