Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 55661 - 55670 of 82563 for simple case.
Search results 55661 - 55670 of 82563 for simple case.
[PDF]
NOTICE
that there is a mandatory minimum of six months in this case. And I feel as an officer of the Court, I’m obligated to say
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36112 - 2014-09-15
that there is a mandatory minimum of six months in this case. And I feel as an officer of the Court, I’m obligated to say
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36112 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
argues that equitable estoppel should apply in this case, and alleges that the trial court was biased
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=431915 - 2021-09-28
argues that equitable estoppel should apply in this case, and alleges that the trial court was biased
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=431915 - 2021-09-28
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
ordinances, we conclude that § 82- 25(a)(2)(b)(2) does not apply in this case because there was no finding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=150403 - 2017-09-21
ordinances, we conclude that § 82- 25(a)(2)(b)(2) does not apply in this case because there was no finding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=150403 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
to cooperate with the examination, the doctor had interviewed C.J.A.’s case manager and reviewed medical
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=370218 - 2021-05-25
to cooperate with the examination, the doctor had interviewed C.J.A.’s case manager and reviewed medical
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=370218 - 2021-05-25
[PDF]
NOTICE
, effective January 1, 2007. The date of the final order in the present case is January 17, 2007
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33445 - 2014-09-15
, effective January 1, 2007. The date of the final order in the present case is January 17, 2007
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33445 - 2014-09-15
State v. Bruce Nuttleman
. We first note the procedural posture of this case. Nuttleman argues that the State needed to prove
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13102 - 2005-03-31
. We first note the procedural posture of this case. Nuttleman argues that the State needed to prove
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13102 - 2005-03-31
Donald Jensen v. A Complete Spa & Pool Supply Centre, Inc.
at 424 (quoting Oakley v. Little, 272 S.E.2d 370, 373 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)). In this case, the sales
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15844 - 2005-03-31
at 424 (quoting Oakley v. Little, 272 S.E.2d 370, 373 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)). In this case, the sales
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15844 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
guilty to two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child, and the case proceeded to sentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71515 - 2011-09-26
guilty to two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child, and the case proceeded to sentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71515 - 2011-09-26
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 31, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of A...
not refer specifically to the victim in this case and, in fact, testified that she had never met the victim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26973 - 2006-10-30
not refer specifically to the victim in this case and, in fact, testified that she had never met the victim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26973 - 2006-10-30
Frederick N. Spence v. Marianne A. Cooke
presumption is that an indigent litigant has no right to appointed counsel in a civil case in the absence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15080 - 2005-03-31
presumption is that an indigent litigant has no right to appointed counsel in a civil case in the absence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15080 - 2005-03-31