Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 67861 - 67870 of 84057 for simple case search.
Search results 67861 - 67870 of 84057 for simple case search.
[PDF]
NOTICE
, is the proper test for the stop of Baake’s vehicle, and contends that this is an appropriate case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=46660 - 2014-09-15
, is the proper test for the stop of Baake’s vehicle, and contends that this is an appropriate case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=46660 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
poisonous tree,” the tree in this case being the PBT.3 See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36686 - 2014-09-15
poisonous tree,” the tree in this case being the PBT.3 See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36686 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
of the State’s case, and the overall strength of the State’s case. Id., ¶48. ¶12 In the present case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=43443 - 2009-11-11
of the State’s case, and the overall strength of the State’s case. Id., ¶48. ¶12 In the present case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=43443 - 2009-11-11
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
be reviewed by the judge of the branch of court to which the case has been assigned, upon motion of any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197436 - 2017-10-05
be reviewed by the judge of the branch of court to which the case has been assigned, upon motion of any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197436 - 2017-10-05
[PDF]
NOTICE
in this case are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted. 3 Rubedor also named as a defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=63283 - 2014-09-15
in this case are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted. 3 Rubedor also named as a defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=63283 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Lawson Bender v. Karmen Lindhal
for the opinion in the above-captioned case which was released on June 26, 1996. Dated this 31st day
/ca/errata/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8397 - 2017-09-19
for the opinion in the above-captioned case which was released on June 26, 1996. Dated this 31st day
/ca/errata/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8397 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
). If they do, we then examine the moving party’s affidavits to determine whether a prima facie case has been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=158226 - 2017-09-21
). If they do, we then examine the moving party’s affidavits to determine whether a prima facie case has been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=158226 - 2017-09-21
Lafayette County Department of Human Services v. Renee J. M.
that a sufficient “request” for an extension had been timely made: In this particular case, the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3455 - 2005-03-31
that a sufficient “request” for an extension had been timely made: In this particular case, the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3455 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
at which a prior act is considered too remote, and remoteness must be considered on a case-by-case basis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32813 - 2008-05-27
at which a prior act is considered too remote, and remoteness must be considered on a case-by-case basis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32813 - 2008-05-27
COURT OF APPEALS
rigor is an erroneous exercise of discretion). He asks this court to again remand the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50547 - 2010-06-13
rigor is an erroneous exercise of discretion). He asks this court to again remand the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50547 - 2010-06-13