Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 64411 - 64420 of 68758 for had.
Search results 64411 - 64420 of 68758 for had.
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Stacy Michelle Rios
, T.S.’s mother confirmed with the court that no motion had been filed on T.S.’s behalf
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16834 - 2005-03-31
, T.S.’s mother confirmed with the court that no motion had been filed on T.S.’s behalf
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16834 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Linda T. Sobish
there was no evidence that Sobish had committed prior abuses, Sobish argues that the jury could have concluded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3237 - 2017-09-19
there was no evidence that Sobish had committed prior abuses, Sobish argues that the jury could have concluded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3237 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
and pleadings to name Seidling individually and as trustee. The court also stated that it had dismissed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1017718 - 2025-09-30
and pleadings to name Seidling individually and as trustee. The court also stated that it had dismissed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1017718 - 2025-09-30
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
). Given that the April 15, 2019 Revocation Order and Warrant shows Rayford had already received credit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=840040 - 2024-08-20
). Given that the April 15, 2019 Revocation Order and Warrant shows Rayford had already received credit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=840040 - 2024-08-20
David K. Kalan v. Bockhorst
and res judicata. Because Kalan filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14372 - 2005-03-31
and res judicata. Because Kalan filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14372 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
brief to the parties, noting that no respondent’s brief had been filed as required under WIS. STAT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=767738 - 2024-02-22
brief to the parties, noting that no respondent’s brief had been filed as required under WIS. STAT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=767738 - 2024-02-22
[PDF]
NOTICE
assumes that, had a QDRO been accepted by the Plan prior to Paul’s disability, she would still
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31323 - 2014-09-15
assumes that, had a QDRO been accepted by the Plan prior to Paul’s disability, she would still
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31323 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Richard W. Foelker
not request a second test from him. Some time later, after Kuehl had left, Foelker requested a secondary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13633 - 2017-09-21
not request a second test from him. Some time later, after Kuehl had left, Foelker requested a secondary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13633 - 2017-09-21
State v. Clinton N. Mansker
). The burden was on Mansker to demonstrate why a change of plea was appropriate. To meet this burden, he had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12052 - 2005-03-31
). The burden was on Mansker to demonstrate why a change of plea was appropriate. To meet this burden, he had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12052 - 2005-03-31
State v. Patrick B.
for abandonment by Patrick pursuant to § 48.415(1)(a)2, Stats.[5] The petition charged that Patrick “has had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12291 - 2005-03-31
for abandonment by Patrick pursuant to § 48.415(1)(a)2, Stats.[5] The petition charged that Patrick “has had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12291 - 2005-03-31