Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 50361 - 50370 of 74688 for public records.
Search results 50361 - 50370 of 74688 for public records.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
, and he has not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=798545 - 2024-05-07
, and he has not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=798545 - 2024-05-07
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. No. 2024AP879-CRNM 2 review of the Record, we conclude there is no arguable merit to any issue
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=879185 - 2024-11-20
. No. 2024AP879-CRNM 2 review of the Record, we conclude there is no arguable merit to any issue
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=879185 - 2024-11-20
COURT OF APPEALS
surcharges. This court can only review matters of record in the trial court and cannot consider new matter
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36866 - 2009-06-22
surcharges. This court can only review matters of record in the trial court and cannot consider new matter
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36866 - 2009-06-22
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
2 consideration of the report and an independent review of the record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=869354 - 2024-10-30
2 consideration of the report and an independent review of the record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=869354 - 2024-10-30
State v. Luegene Hampton
of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we conclude that there is no arguable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9935 - 2005-03-31
of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we conclude that there is no arguable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9935 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of conviction. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=240669 - 2019-05-10
of conviction. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=240669 - 2019-05-10
[PDF]
Garry A. Borzych v. Daniel Bertrand
should be vacated because the record did not support the increased penalty. The court relied on State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20742 - 2017-09-21
should be vacated because the record did not support the increased penalty. The court relied on State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20742 - 2017-09-21
State v. Eugene Henry Jensen
of the record shows that Attorney Ruth diligently and aptly represented Jensen during these long proceedings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6323 - 2005-03-31
of the record shows that Attorney Ruth diligently and aptly represented Jensen during these long proceedings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6323 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107811 - 2014-02-11
review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107811 - 2014-02-11
COURT OF APPEALS
of the appellate record. Absent exceptional circumstances not applicable here, we do not consider “assertions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=120140 - 2014-12-22
of the appellate record. Absent exceptional circumstances not applicable here, we do not consider “assertions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=120140 - 2014-12-22