Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 63441 - 63450 of 82591 for simple case.

COURT OF APPEALS
the PBT in the present case was not, in the first instance, conducted in furtherance of an investigation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41938 - 2009-10-07

COURT OF APPEALS
§ 106-3B. ¶15 More to the point, the only issue in this case related to the denial of Tomlin’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=79849 - 2012-03-21

COURT OF APPEALS
. ¶8 The case proceeded to a jury trial solely on Rubedor’s claim that Dr. Kopp failed to obtain
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=63283 - 2011-04-27

[PDF] NOTICE
defense in this case. ¶14 The probative value of the other acts evidence was not substantially
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35061 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
involved another case that is not at issue in this appeal. No. 2020AP1818 4 initial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=563647 - 2022-09-07

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
demanded of attorneys in criminal cases and that the deficient performance affected the outcome
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=161245 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
(1967) (burden of proof required in ordinance forfeiture cases is clear, satisfactory, and convincing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=161687 - 2017-09-21

State v. Richard D. Martin
. App. 1996). However, appellate courts will independently examine the case’s circumstances
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3231 - 2005-03-31

State v. Penny P. Skaife
, are distinguishable from those before us in this case. First, in Anderson the supreme court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14981 - 2005-03-31

State v. Eric Pittman
is made to avoid determinations of ineffectiveness based on hindsight. Rather, the case is reviewed from
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13994 - 2005-03-31