Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5491 - 5500 of 68468 for did.
Search results 5491 - 5500 of 68468 for did.
[PDF]
NOTICE
a marked squad car, followed Konkol but did not activate the car’s emergency lights. Konkol drove to his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30099 - 2014-09-15
a marked squad car, followed Konkol but did not activate the car’s emergency lights. Konkol drove to his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30099 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Sherard D. Jenkins
program. Based on that, Jenkins seeks resentencing. Because the trial court did not erroneously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25294 - 2017-09-21
program. Based on that, Jenkins seeks resentencing. Because the trial court did not erroneously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25294 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
suppression motion.1 Because the police officer’s actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment, we affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59738 - 2014-09-15
suppression motion.1 Because the police officer’s actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment, we affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59738 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
that supports findings the circuit court did not make. Id. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45138 - 2009-12-29
that supports findings the circuit court did not make. Id. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45138 - 2009-12-29
COURT OF APPEALS
the police officer’s actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59738 - 2011-02-07
the police officer’s actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59738 - 2011-02-07
[PDF]
State v. Kurt A. Loewen
because he did not understand that a mere arrest, as opposed to a conviction, would be a breach
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8210 - 2017-09-19
because he did not understand that a mere arrest, as opposed to a conviction, would be a breach
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8210 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that he did not possess the firearm as charged because the firearm belonged to Cullen, not Pitts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=162147 - 2017-09-21
that he did not possess the firearm as charged because the firearm belonged to Cullen, not Pitts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=162147 - 2017-09-21
State v. George A. Harper
that he had no recollection of specifically advising White that Harper was operating his truck. Kuehn did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8619 - 2005-03-31
that he had no recollection of specifically advising White that Harper was operating his truck. Kuehn did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8619 - 2005-03-31
La Crosse County DHS v. Sharon P.
litem did not object to the discovery order. ¶3 On February 11, 2005, a status
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20574 - 2005-12-07
litem did not object to the discovery order. ¶3 On February 11, 2005, a status
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20574 - 2005-12-07
State v. Randy J. Smith
-adjudication motions and affidavits seeking to withdraw the stipulation. He contends that the court did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16267 - 2005-03-31
-adjudication motions and affidavits seeking to withdraw the stipulation. He contends that the court did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16267 - 2005-03-31