Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 6871 - 6880 of 45631 for even.

[PDF] CA Blank Order
excluded the officer’s post-incident remark as irrelevant, and even if that evidentiary ruling was wrong
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=289129 - 2020-09-22

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 5, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of A...
, reasoning that even if the State had the letters prior to the plea agreement and even if “the letters fell
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27319 - 2006-12-04

Randy S. Caflisch v. Julie Staum
that that version applies. Caflisch responded that the amended statute did not apply and, even if it did, that Kuhn
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16084 - 2005-03-31

State v. Fitzroy Donaldson
is entitled to continue to receive the documents even after his conviction. Donaldson does not cite any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13410 - 2005-03-31

Su Wings Corporation v. City of Lake Geneva
. As the respondents argue, however, even assuming that these actions are ministerial in nature and the respondents did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5506 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Larry D. Lakes
, was assaulted and robbed. Adamavich indicated that earlier in the evening Lakes told him he had a guy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6095 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS
before he confessed. He also testified that if he had not consumed alcohol or been injured that evening
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59405 - 2011-01-26

[PDF] CA Blank Order
the defendant's judgment of conviction even though he did not "expressly and personally articulate a plea
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=140559 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
report or in the WIS. STAT. § 974.06 motion he filed in 1993. The trial court continued: “Even
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=125288 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] NOTICE
possession claim because it was not a “substantial enclosure.” The court also concluded that even
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=42316 - 2014-09-15