Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 59801 - 59810 of 63537 for records.

Wayne L. Koenig v. Donald Aldrich
their burden turns on the manner in which the conflicting testimony is resolved. The record contains evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21309 - 2006-02-06

Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Jill Gilbert
or administrative agency, together with the case number of each matter. (f) Maintain records of the various steps
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17074 - 2005-03-31

State v. Frank Curiel
in order to evaluate Curiel, including records from the Department of Corrections and from the Mendota
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12454 - 2005-03-31

Charlene M. Potkay v. City of Marinette
affirm.[2] The record describes the following facts.[3] Charlene was injured
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8741 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
supports the conclusion that no reasonable fact finder could conclude on this record that Smith’s Facebook
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=115994 - 2014-07-02

State v. Alfredo Ramirez
, and the failure to make and keep records of controlled substances. Id. at 189. ¶10 Wisconsin
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3071 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
as a “misrepresentation” that the State “relied upon” to its detriment. Under the facts of record, however, Strohman
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=134124 - 2015-02-02

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
of privacy and therefore lacked standing to assert Fourth Amendment protections), but because the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=218216 - 2018-08-29

Rock County DHS v. Daphnea W.
selection dates that had been postponed. The circuit court did not consider Daphnea’s record of appearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21002 - 2006-01-18

John Vishnevsky v. Dempsey
a reasonable fee. ¶7 The record here belies Vishnevsky’s claim that the circuit court’s decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2873 - 2005-03-31