Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 6441 - 6450 of 57152 for id.
Search results 6441 - 6450 of 57152 for id.
State v. Anthony J. Rychtik
justifying a motion to modify a sentence. Id. A new factor is a fact or set of facts highly relevant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4658 - 2005-03-31
justifying a motion to modify a sentence. Id. A new factor is a fact or set of facts highly relevant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4658 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Steven M. Zoromski
the court exercised appropriate discretion. Id. at 780, 576 N.W.2d at 36. We sustain an evidentiary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14323 - 2014-09-15
the court exercised appropriate discretion. Id. at 780, 576 N.W.2d at 36. We sustain an evidentiary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14323 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
is a commonsense test. Id., ¶13. ¶7 The crucial question is whether the facts of the case would warrant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=62149 - 2014-09-15
is a commonsense test. Id., ¶13. ¶7 The crucial question is whether the facts of the case would warrant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=62149 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the town’s property for the fireworks display. Id. The court held that “recreational immunity does
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107533 - 2017-09-21
the town’s property for the fireworks display. Id. The court held that “recreational immunity does
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107533 - 2017-09-21
Liduvina Stensland v. Warshafsky
to a losing argument. Id. at 348 (citation omitted). This court agrees with the Warshafsky law firm’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3485 - 2005-03-31
to a losing argument. Id. at 348 (citation omitted). This court agrees with the Warshafsky law firm’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3485 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
County of Jefferson v. Sean S. Lynch
any signs of erratic driving, stopped the pickup. Id., ¶7. The court concluded that the officer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5734 - 2017-09-19
any signs of erratic driving, stopped the pickup. Id., ¶7. The court concluded that the officer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5734 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
4 historical fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Second, we review de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=102214 - 2017-09-21
4 historical fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Second, we review de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=102214 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
of a stop is determined based on the totality of the circumstances. Id. In order for an investigatory stop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93891 - 2013-03-12
of a stop is determined based on the totality of the circumstances. Id. In order for an investigatory stop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93891 - 2013-03-12
County of Jefferson v. Sean S. Lynch
observing any signs of erratic driving, stopped the pickup. Id., ¶7. The court concluded that the officer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5734 - 2005-03-31
observing any signs of erratic driving, stopped the pickup. Id., ¶7. The court concluded that the officer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5734 - 2005-03-31
State v. Anthony J. Rychtik
justifying a motion to modify a sentence. Id. A new factor is a fact or set of facts highly relevant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4655 - 2005-03-31
justifying a motion to modify a sentence. Id. A new factor is a fact or set of facts highly relevant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4655 - 2005-03-31