Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5361 - 5370 of 63734 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 5361 - 5370 of 63734 for Motion for joint custody.
[PDF]
Michael F. W. v. Betty A. W.
divorced, with joint legal custody of Ryan. Primary placement is with [Ryan’s] mother, Betty A.[W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6649 - 2017-09-20
divorced, with joint legal custody of Ryan. Primary placement is with [Ryan’s] mother, Betty A.[W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6649 - 2017-09-20
Michael F. W. v. Betty A. W.
recently divorced, with joint legal custody of Ryan. Primary placement is with [Ryan’s] mother, Betty A.[W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6649 - 2005-03-31
recently divorced, with joint legal custody of Ryan. Primary placement is with [Ryan’s] mother, Betty A.[W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6649 - 2005-03-31
Timothy Cepukenas v. Shelli L. Cepukenas
a judgment of divorce by a Virginia state court. The judgment of divorce granted the parties joint custody
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12662 - 2005-03-31
a judgment of divorce by a Virginia state court. The judgment of divorce granted the parties joint custody
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12662 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Jeffrey A. Wagner v. Milwaukee County Election Commission
to this matter to submit a Joint Stipulation of Facts, which they did on April 11, 2002. Other important
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16590 - 2017-09-21
to this matter to submit a Joint Stipulation of Facts, which they did on April 11, 2002. Other important
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16590 - 2017-09-21
Jeffrey A. Wagner v. Milwaukee County Election Commission
, this court ordered the parties to this matter to submit a Joint Stipulation of Facts, which they did on April
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16590 - 2005-03-31
, this court ordered the parties to this matter to submit a Joint Stipulation of Facts, which they did on April
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16590 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
-CR 2 § 943.32(2), and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief.1 Brock argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52601 - 2014-09-15
-CR 2 § 943.32(2), and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief.1 Brock argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52601 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
), and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief.[1] Brock argues that: (1) the trial court should
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52601 - 2010-07-26
), and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief.[1] Brock argues that: (1) the trial court should
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52601 - 2010-07-26
[PDF]
NOTICE
(1m)(h)3. (2003-04).1 He also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion. The only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=44876 - 2014-09-15
(1m)(h)3. (2003-04).1 He also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion. The only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=44876 - 2014-09-15
State v. Jeffrey Townsend
in denying his motion to dismiss based on a failure to comply with the statutory procedures of the Interstate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6169 - 2005-03-31
in denying his motion to dismiss based on a failure to comply with the statutory procedures of the Interstate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6169 - 2005-03-31
State v. Charles Johnson
a postconviction order denying his resentencing motion.[1] The issue is whether the trial court erroneously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21022 - 2006-01-23
a postconviction order denying his resentencing motion.[1] The issue is whether the trial court erroneously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21022 - 2006-01-23