Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5271 - 5280 of 63539 for records.

Dean Snodgrass v. David H. Schwarz
a reasoning process based on the facts on the record and a “conclusion based on a logical rationale founded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7205 - 2005-03-31

WI App 54 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2011AP414 Complete Title of ...
not fall under either the business-records or ancient-documents exceptions to the hearsay rule.[3] ¶5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=81087 - 2012-05-30

[PDF] CA Blank Order
809.32. Stokes did not file a response. Based upon our review of the no-merit report and the record
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=223762 - 2018-10-18

State v. Cesar Diaz Deleon
standards, demonstrating the exercise of discretion, must be set forth on the record at sentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6938 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
independently reviewed the record. We conclude that no arguably meritorious issues exist for appeal, and we
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145379 - 2017-09-21

State v. Douglass Potter
in the record for the sentence imposed.” State v. Borrell, 167 Wis. 2d 749, 782, 482 N.W.2d 883, 895 (1992
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6662 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
Wis. 2d 339, 348, 404 N.W.2d 557 (Ct. App. 1987). ¶10 The record reflects that Rausch responded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=49241 - 2010-04-26

CA Blank Order
. Upon this court’s independent review of the record as mandated by Anders, counsel’s report, and Tatum’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98458 - 2013-06-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
that, if Cameron would withdraw the motion, she would “make a record … as to [his] rationale behind this decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=894702 - 2024-12-26

Ryan Joseph Pierce v. Kimberly Jean Pierce
that the record discloses a rational basis for the court’s determination and, therefore, we do not overturn its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5779 - 2005-03-31