Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 7201 - 7210 of 68275 for did.
Search results 7201 - 7210 of 68275 for did.
Christine Simmons v. Richard Simmons
agreement. In its oral decision, which was incorporated by the written order, the court also did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2636 - 2005-03-31
agreement. In its oral decision, which was incorporated by the written order, the court also did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2636 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
City of Madison v. Jens W.L. Hinrichsen
this issue before the trial court, and we see no evidence in the record that he did. In order to challenge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11375 - 2017-09-19
this issue before the trial court, and we see no evidence in the record that he did. In order to challenge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11375 - 2017-09-19
State v. Leonard A. Sarnowski
or more consecutive days” when one is “legally obligated” to do so. The State charged that Sarnowski did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7371 - 2005-03-31
or more consecutive days” when one is “legally obligated” to do so. The State charged that Sarnowski did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7371 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
minimum sentence. Each time, Miner responded that he pleaded no contest. At no time did Miner state
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1041931 - 2025-11-25
minimum sentence. Each time, Miner responded that he pleaded no contest. At no time did Miner state
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1041931 - 2025-11-25
State v. Joseph C. Coles
be concurrent because the trial court did not expressly state that the sentence was consecutive to a “time
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10346 - 2005-03-31
be concurrent because the trial court did not expressly state that the sentence was consecutive to a “time
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10346 - 2005-03-31
State v. David C. Hertzberg
a public defender.[4] David did not make an appearance at the August 9, 1991
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9494 - 2005-03-31
a public defender.[4] David did not make an appearance at the August 9, 1991
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9494 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Richard G. Giese
must also allege that he or she did not know or understand the information which should have been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14989 - 2017-09-21
must also allege that he or she did not know or understand the information which should have been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14989 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Joseph P. Sepanek, Jr. v. M & I Bank of Burlington
. beneficiary of the accounts. At the time of this designation, the Bank’s computer software did not allow
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11238 - 2017-09-19
. beneficiary of the accounts. At the time of this designation, the Bank’s computer software did not allow
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11238 - 2017-09-19
State v. Donald J. Buford
denying his postconviction motion. Buford claims: (1) he did not knowingly waive his right to testify
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6924 - 2005-03-31
denying his postconviction motion. Buford claims: (1) he did not knowingly waive his right to testify
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6924 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and performed oral sex on them without their consent. ¶5 Surles did not testify. In closing, as relevant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=875564 - 2024-11-13
and performed oral sex on them without their consent. ¶5 Surles did not testify. In closing, as relevant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=875564 - 2024-11-13