Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 551 - 560 of 20363 for sai.
Search results 551 - 560 of 20363 for sai.
[PDF]
State v. Richard L. Verkler
. Verkler declined to submit to this test, saying he did not believe in it. He was arrested for OWI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5335 - 2017-09-19
. Verkler declined to submit to this test, saying he did not believe in it. He was arrested for OWI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5335 - 2017-09-19
State v. John Henry Balsewicz
was saying to you, Judge. And part of that report says that he’s okay. I don’t disagree with the report
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15251 - 2005-03-31
was saying to you, Judge. And part of that report says that he’s okay. I don’t disagree with the report
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15251 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
knew Memphis, how long he’d known him, where the man lived. Why did the defendant say Memphis was from
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=106741 - 2014-01-14
knew Memphis, how long he’d known him, where the man lived. Why did the defendant say Memphis was from
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=106741 - 2014-01-14
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that the defendant possessed recently stolen property.” (Emphasis added.) The instruction did not say
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=82109 - 2014-09-15
that the defendant possessed recently stolen property.” (Emphasis added.) The instruction did not say
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=82109 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Constantine F. Weimer
). No. 2005AP771-CR 2 argues that a defendant cannot be convicted for violating § 944.30(1) if all he says
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19094 - 2017-09-21
). No. 2005AP771-CR 2 argues that a defendant cannot be convicted for violating § 944.30(1) if all he says
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19094 - 2017-09-21
State v. Kathleen A. Krogman
that he would “take a look at that, and I won’t dispute what the court’s saying.” Apparently counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14367 - 2005-03-31
that he would “take a look at that, and I won’t dispute what the court’s saying.” Apparently counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14367 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Diane M. Somers
into evidence at her hearing, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over her person. She also says that because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11460 - 2017-09-19
into evidence at her hearing, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over her person. She also says that because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11460 - 2017-09-19
State v. Leroy A. Yench
then stated he understood. I reread the part where it says, “Will you submit to an evidentiary chemical test
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3668 - 2005-03-31
then stated he understood. I reread the part where it says, “Will you submit to an evidentiary chemical test
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3668 - 2005-03-31
State v. Diane M. Somers
was not admitted into evidence at her hearing, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over her person. She also says
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11460 - 2005-03-31
was not admitted into evidence at her hearing, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over her person. She also says
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11460 - 2005-03-31
State v. Constantine F. Weimer
cannot be convicted for violating § 944.30(1) if all he says is that he will pay “$20.00 for sex” without
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19094 - 2005-07-25
cannot be convicted for violating § 944.30(1) if all he says is that he will pay “$20.00 for sex” without
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19094 - 2005-07-25