Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 8171 - 8180 of 83244 for simple case search/1000.

[PDF] CA Blank Order
, the circuit court would have found the search warrant overbroad
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=630415 - 2023-03-08

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
executed a search warrant for a residence associated with Smith at 1223 1/2 Bluff Street in Beloit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149032 - 2017-09-21

State v. David R. Melstrand
to suppress the marijuana cigarette. It denied them after finding that Melstrand consented to the search
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4345 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. David R. Melstrand
that Melstrand consented to the search and Poupart did not exceed the scope of the consent. The court stated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4345 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] County of Vilas v. David R. Melstrand
that Melstrand consented to the search and Poupart did not exceed the scope of the consent. The court stated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4347 - 2017-09-19

County of Vilas v. David R. Melstrand
to suppress the marijuana cigarette. It denied them after finding that Melstrand consented to the search
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4347 - 2013-12-16

County of Vilas v. David R. Melstrand
to suppress the marijuana cigarette. It denied them after finding that Melstrand consented to the search
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4346 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] County of Vilas v. David R. Melstrand
that Melstrand consented to the search and Poupart did not exceed the scope of the consent. The court stated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4346 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS
-defendant in a prior homicide case, and the court wrongly denied his mistrial motion when the jury heard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=38501 - 2009-07-28

COURT OF APPEALS
, leaves the owner with the greatest possible estate. However, this is not an eminent domain case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=65391 - 2011-06-06