Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 7401 - 7410 of 50071 for our.
Search results 7401 - 7410 of 50071 for our.
State v. Eric J. Yelk
that there is no arguable basis to challenge Yelk’s guilty and no contest pleas. Our independent review of the records
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11852 - 2005-03-31
that there is no arguable basis to challenge Yelk’s guilty and no contest pleas. Our independent review of the records
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11852 - 2005-03-31
State v. Eric J. Yelk
that there is no arguable basis to challenge Yelk’s guilty and no contest pleas. Our independent review of the records
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11855 - 2005-03-31
that there is no arguable basis to challenge Yelk’s guilty and no contest pleas. Our independent review of the records
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11855 - 2005-03-31
State v. Quinn Johnson
reliance upon information that Johnson contends was no longer appropriate for consideration in light of our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6776 - 2005-03-31
reliance upon information that Johnson contends was no longer appropriate for consideration in light of our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6776 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
of [the witness’s] credibility.” Id. ¶10 The State also directs our attention to People v. Olguin, 37 Cal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85278 - 2012-07-23
of [the witness’s] credibility.” Id. ¶10 The State also directs our attention to People v. Olguin, 37 Cal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85278 - 2012-07-23
COURT OF APPEALS
a written decision affirming the Commission’s decision. This appeal follows. ¶5 Our standard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46411 - 2010-02-01
a written decision affirming the Commission’s decision. This appeal follows. ¶5 Our standard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46411 - 2010-02-01
COURT OF APPEALS
, 721 N.W.2d 499. Our review is limited to the following questions: (1) did the Board keep within its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32727 - 2008-05-19
, 721 N.W.2d 499. Our review is limited to the following questions: (1) did the Board keep within its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32727 - 2008-05-19
COURT OF APPEALS
the law nor the facts have changed since then. Our resolution of the issue in Lundt’s first appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30228 - 2007-09-10
the law nor the facts have changed since then. Our resolution of the issue in Lundt’s first appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30228 - 2007-09-10
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
have arguable merit. Our review of a sentence determination begins “with the presumption
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=140324 - 2017-09-21
have arguable merit. Our review of a sentence determination begins “with the presumption
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=140324 - 2017-09-21
CA Blank Order
imposed, but Walker’s response does not address the sentencing issue. Upon our independent review
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=132842 - 2015-01-08
imposed, but Walker’s response does not address the sentencing issue. Upon our independent review
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=132842 - 2015-01-08
COURT OF APPEALS
, 2000). In our opinion, we reviewed the trial court’s sentencing comments, noting that the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29476 - 2007-06-25
, 2000). In our opinion, we reviewed the trial court’s sentencing comments, noting that the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29476 - 2007-06-25