Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 75581 - 75590 of 83820 for simple case search.
Search results 75581 - 75590 of 83820 for simple case search.
State v. Joseph A. Landrum
on those factors considered “new factors” under existing case law, but refused to expand the definition
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5655 - 2005-03-31
on those factors considered “new factors” under existing case law, but refused to expand the definition
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5655 - 2005-03-31
Riviera Airport, Inc. v. Pierce County Board of Adjustment
to the board. The trial court remanded the case to the board and ordered it to conduct a de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14310 - 2005-03-31
to the board. The trial court remanded the case to the board and ordered it to conduct a de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14310 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Thomas Faust
and provided no citation to any applicable law. The brief added nothing to our understanding of this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11048 - 2017-09-19
and provided no citation to any applicable law. The brief added nothing to our understanding of this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11048 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
objectives of sentencing and applied the sentencing factors in light of the facts of this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=220570 - 2018-10-03
objectives of sentencing and applied the sentencing factors in light of the facts of this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=220570 - 2018-10-03
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
was within the maximum Lueck faced and, given the facts of this case, was not so excessive or unduly harsh
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=157733 - 2017-09-21
was within the maximum Lueck faced and, given the facts of this case, was not so excessive or unduly harsh
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=157733 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
worker Kelly M. Brockway (K.R.H.’s case manager), filed a recommitment petition observing that K.R.H
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=330437 - 2021-02-03
worker Kelly M. Brockway (K.R.H.’s case manager), filed a recommitment petition observing that K.R.H
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=330437 - 2021-02-03
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. Based on our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=207736 - 2018-01-25
. Based on our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=207736 - 2018-01-25
[PDF]
Judith N. Nolan v. John R. Knight
and complaint is not sufficient under WIS. STAT. § 801.02(1). See id. at 527. ¶3 In this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16292 - 2017-09-21
and complaint is not sufficient under WIS. STAT. § 801.02(1). See id. at 527. ¶3 In this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16292 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The no- merit report sets forth the procedural history of the case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=237973 - 2019-03-26
. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The no- merit report sets forth the procedural history of the case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=237973 - 2019-03-26
John E. Pickel v. John Harr, Jr.
to defer costs disputes in appropriate cases. We see no evidence that the legislature intended
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11831 - 2005-03-31
to defer costs disputes in appropriate cases. We see no evidence that the legislature intended
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11831 - 2005-03-31