Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 8041 - 8050 of 24568 for extending.
Search results 8041 - 8050 of 24568 for extending.
State v. Christopher A. Goodvine
to eight years of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision on the recklessly endangering
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7395 - 2005-03-31
to eight years of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision on the recklessly endangering
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7395 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
. In addition, the duration of the law enforcement questioning may not extend the stop beyond the time necessary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34361 - 2008-10-21
. In addition, the duration of the law enforcement questioning may not extend the stop beyond the time necessary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34361 - 2008-10-21
COURT OF APPEALS
to twelve years of imprisonment, consisting of seven years of initial confinement and five years of extended
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=100893 - 2013-08-19
to twelve years of imprisonment, consisting of seven years of initial confinement and five years of extended
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=100893 - 2013-08-19
CA Blank Order
sentences of two years in confinement, followed by two years of extended supervision on each count
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104324 - 2013-11-19
sentences of two years in confinement, followed by two years of extended supervision on each count
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104324 - 2013-11-19
[PDF]
Janet M. Evans v. Timothy D. Heitman, M.D.
for perfecting the judgment had expired, Dr. Heitman filed a motion to extend the time within which to perfect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14112 - 2014-09-15
for perfecting the judgment had expired, Dr. Heitman filed a motion to extend the time within which to perfect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14112 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that “[t]he ten-day time limit is a mandatory requirement that may not be extended due
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=206044 - 2017-12-27
that “[t]he ten-day time limit is a mandatory requirement that may not be extended due
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=206044 - 2017-12-27
[PDF]
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Maureen B. Fitzgerald
to extend the applicable statute of limitations, when that information was not true. Attorney
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25393 - 2017-09-21
to extend the applicable statute of limitations, when that information was not true. Attorney
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25393 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
’ extended supervision. Defense counsel also informed Taylor that the State’s witnesses, including
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=272858 - 2020-07-28
’ extended supervision. Defense counsel also informed Taylor that the State’s witnesses, including
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=272858 - 2020-07-28
[PDF]
State v. Angel E.
and services was entered in September 1991. That order was extended in September 1992, September 1993
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9886 - 2017-09-19
and services was entered in September 1991. That order was extended in September 1992, September 1993
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9886 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Angel E.
and services was entered in September 1991. That order was extended in September 1992, September 1993
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9885 - 2017-09-19
and services was entered in September 1991. That order was extended in September 1992, September 1993
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9885 - 2017-09-19