Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 6791 - 6800 of 63734 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 6791 - 6800 of 63734 for Motion for joint custody.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
in this case “from the time he was in custody on an extended supervision hold” on April 24, 2020,2 until
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=813552 - 2024-06-18
in this case “from the time he was in custody on an extended supervision hold” on April 24, 2020,2 until
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=813552 - 2024-06-18
[PDF]
La Crosse County Department of Human Services v. Shannon K.
it in the trial court. Shannon replies that the motion she brought after filing her notice of appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3777 - 2017-09-19
it in the trial court. Shannon replies that the motion she brought after filing her notice of appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3777 - 2017-09-19
La Crosse County Department of Human Services v. Shannon K.
that the motion she brought after filing her notice of appeal was to avoid any potential waiver problems
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3777 - 2005-03-31
that the motion she brought after filing her notice of appeal was to avoid any potential waiver problems
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3777 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
/bond forfeiture” and from an order denying his motion to reconsider the forfeiture judgment
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1007249 - 2025-09-09
/bond forfeiture” and from an order denying his motion to reconsider the forfeiture judgment
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1007249 - 2025-09-09
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
/bond forfeiture” and from an order denying his motion to reconsider the forfeiture judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1007249 - 2025-09-09
/bond forfeiture” and from an order denying his motion to reconsider the forfeiture judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1007249 - 2025-09-09
[PDF]
State v. Stephen E. Lee
cause determination. The trial court denied the motion. The trial court held that Lee was in custody
/ca/errata/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14486 - 2017-09-21
cause determination. The trial court denied the motion. The trial court held that Lee was in custody
/ca/errata/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14486 - 2017-09-21
State v. Michael T. Morgan
to the charges. At a hearing on May 28, 1993, the circuit court granted the defendant's motion to suppress
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16869 - 2005-03-31
to the charges. At a hearing on May 28, 1993, the circuit court granted the defendant's motion to suppress
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16869 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Michael T. Morgan
to the charges. At a hearing on May 28, 1993, the circuit court granted the defendant's motion to suppress
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16869 - 2017-09-21
to the charges. At a hearing on May 28, 1993, the circuit court granted the defendant's motion to suppress
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16869 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI APP 56
the interviews in their entirety. The facts are those gleaned from the trial and motion hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=48057 - 2014-09-15
the interviews in their entirety. The facts are those gleaned from the trial and motion hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=48057 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
WI App 57
value of approximately $97,000. Although the parties’ joint expert testified regarding Tracy’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=848423 - 2024-11-12
value of approximately $97,000. Although the parties’ joint expert testified regarding Tracy’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=848423 - 2024-11-12