Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 8121 - 8130 of 58613 for speedy trial.
Search results 8121 - 8130 of 58613 for speedy trial.
[PDF]
M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Kazim Investments, Inc.
) the trial court erred because it failed to complete the confirmation hearing upon remand; (2) the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20802 - 2017-09-21
) the trial court erred because it failed to complete the confirmation hearing upon remand; (2) the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20802 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. Rogers presents three arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erroneously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106674 - 2017-09-21
. Rogers presents three arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erroneously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106674 - 2017-09-21
State v. Bernell L. Ross, Sr.
).[1] He also challenges the trial court’s restitution award. ¶2 Ross contends
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4829 - 2005-03-31
).[1] He also challenges the trial court’s restitution award. ¶2 Ross contends
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4829 - 2005-03-31
M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Kazim Investments, Inc.
that: (1) the trial court erred because it failed to complete the confirmation hearing upon remand; (2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20802 - 2005-12-27
that: (1) the trial court erred because it failed to complete the confirmation hearing upon remand; (2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20802 - 2005-12-27
[PDF]
State v. Bernell L. Ross, Sr.
-98).1 He also challenges the trial court’s restitution award. ¶2 Ross contends that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4829 - 2017-09-19
-98).1 He also challenges the trial court’s restitution award. ¶2 Ross contends that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4829 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in granting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=106674 - 2014-01-13
on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in granting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=106674 - 2014-01-13
Paul D. Atkinson v. Donald D. Mentzel
of an easement. Both the appellant, Donald D. Mentzel, and the respondent, Paul D. Atkinson, requested the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10259 - 2005-03-31
of an easement. Both the appellant, Donald D. Mentzel, and the respondent, Paul D. Atkinson, requested the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10259 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Jarmal Nelson
Nelson argues that while the trial court properly exercised its discretion when, in considering his pre
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17755 - 2017-09-21
Nelson argues that while the trial court properly exercised its discretion when, in considering his pre
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17755 - 2017-09-21
State v. Jarmal Nelson
the trial court properly exercised its discretion when, in considering his pre‑sentencing motion seeking
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17755 - 2005-07-06
the trial court properly exercised its discretion when, in considering his pre‑sentencing motion seeking
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17755 - 2005-07-06
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
postconviction motion for a new trial. McKinnon argues that his trial counsel provided constitutionally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=576061 - 2022-10-13
postconviction motion for a new trial. McKinnon argues that his trial counsel provided constitutionally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=576061 - 2022-10-13