Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 8481 - 8490 of 68996 for did.
Search results 8481 - 8490 of 68996 for did.
COURT OF APPEALS
into and leased office space owned by Wyndham. The two parties did not, however, enter into a written lease
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=49635 - 2010-05-03
into and leased office space owned by Wyndham. The two parties did not, however, enter into a written lease
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=49635 - 2010-05-03
State v. Kraig V. Carter
. Because the trial court did not erroneously exercise its sentencing discretion, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20323 - 2008-08-13
. Because the trial court did not erroneously exercise its sentencing discretion, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20323 - 2008-08-13
COURT OF APPEALS
of th[e]se offenses. Although he asserts that he did not understand the elements, he does not state
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74805 - 2011-12-21
of th[e]se offenses. Although he asserts that he did not understand the elements, he does not state
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74805 - 2011-12-21
[PDF]
Firstar Trust Company v. Richard D. Gebhardt
of law. Because the law of the case holds that the trial court did not err in dismissing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13072 - 2017-09-21
of law. Because the law of the case holds that the trial court did not err in dismissing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13072 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
claims that: (1) the Division of Hearings and Appeals did not have jurisdiction to revoke his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31046 - 2014-09-15
claims that: (1) the Division of Hearings and Appeals did not have jurisdiction to revoke his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31046 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Troy Barner
) that he did not knowingly enter his guilty plea because “he was unaware of the penalties the court could
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9104 - 2017-09-19
) that he did not knowingly enter his guilty plea because “he was unaware of the penalties the court could
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9104 - 2017-09-19
Donna K. Bracken v. Daniel M. Derse
to the jury solely on the issue of battery because Derse did not have insurance coverage for intentional acts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10430 - 2005-03-31
to the jury solely on the issue of battery because Derse did not have insurance coverage for intentional acts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10430 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
probation. Brown claims that: (1) the Division of Hearings and Appeals did not have jurisdiction to revoke
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31046 - 2007-12-03
probation. Brown claims that: (1) the Division of Hearings and Appeals did not have jurisdiction to revoke
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31046 - 2007-12-03
[PDF]
State v. Michael A. Simmons
this court concludes that Simmons’ actions did not knowingly violate the injunction’s requirement “to avoid
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5489 - 2017-09-19
this court concludes that Simmons’ actions did not knowingly violate the injunction’s requirement “to avoid
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5489 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
previously—but asserted that he did so “inadequately.” ¶5 The postconviction court denied Miller’s motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=108849 - 2017-09-21
previously—but asserted that he did so “inadequately.” ¶5 The postconviction court denied Miller’s motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=108849 - 2017-09-21