Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 64591 - 64600 of 69002 for had.

[PDF] State v. Robert T. Barnard
testified that he had no specific reasons to believe that any crime was occurring, the argument
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7451 - 2017-09-20

City of Berlin v. Jane M. Bartol
, Krajewski v. Wisconsin, 537 U.S. 1089 (2002). We presume that the legislature had good reasons for giving
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7185 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] NOTICE
hearing, the State dismissed the OWI charge. At the hearing, Logan testified that he had ten and one
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31823 - 2014-09-15

City of Appleton v. Jennifer L. Drephal
with the area where Drephal had been driving. However, neither officer testified that the area was in Outagamie
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15701 - 2005-03-31

[MS WORD] CV-402: Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Petition and Motion for Injunction Hearing (Domestic Abuse)
. |_| f. a person with whom the petitioner has or had a dating relationship. 2. The petitioner
/formdisplay/CV-402.doc?formNumber=CV-402&formType=Form&formatId=1&language=en - 2025-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
fight commenced when [the victim] rushed [Snyder] while [Snyder] still had his arms in his coat; (b
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315230 - 2020-12-16

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
) the dismissive attitude Zink had concerning the aggravated nature of his crimes and their impact on his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=89103 - 2014-09-15

CA Blank Order
. With respect to the sentence imposed, the record reveals that the circuit court’s decision had a “rational
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=146155 - 2015-08-18

[PDF] NOTICE
findings.” ¶4 The court found that the Kenosha County Department of Planning and Development had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36102 - 2014-09-15

The Trustee of the Ronald Zuelsdorf and Patricia Zuelsdorf Family Living Trust v. Andrew Hetzel
the restrictive covenant against Hetzel. Hetzel counterclaimed, arguing that Zuelsdorf had completed extensive
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6640 - 2005-03-31