Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 8531 - 8540 of 59264 for quit claim deed.
Search results 8531 - 8540 of 59264 for quit claim deed.
Lloyd Stunkel v. Price Electric Cooperative
Stunkel appeal a judgment dismissing their claim against Price Electric Cooperative and Federated Rural
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14545 - 2005-03-31
Stunkel appeal a judgment dismissing their claim against Price Electric Cooperative and Federated Rural
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14545 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that Grady’s claims are barred, and for the reasons set forth below, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Grady
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=607977 - 2023-01-10
that Grady’s claims are barred, and for the reasons set forth below, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Grady
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=607977 - 2023-01-10
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
from a judgment denying her claims for damages against Scott Huntress and awarding Huntress
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1069212 - 2026-01-27
from a judgment denying her claims for damages against Scott Huntress and awarding Huntress
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1069212 - 2026-01-27
COURT OF APPEALS
(2009-10).[1] Because Adell’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is procedurally barred and his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=70527 - 2011-09-06
(2009-10).[1] Because Adell’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is procedurally barred and his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=70527 - 2011-09-06
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Kelly S. Kincaid. Based upon our review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=943969 - 2025-04-22
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Kelly S. Kincaid. Based upon our review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=943969 - 2025-04-22
[PDF]
NOTICE
contends the trial court erred in ruling that his claims were procedurally barred by State v. Escalona
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28922 - 2014-09-15
contends the trial court erred in ruling that his claims were procedurally barred by State v. Escalona
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28922 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
postconviction motions. Critton contends the trial court erred in ruling that his claims were procedurally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28922 - 2007-05-07
postconviction motions. Critton contends the trial court erred in ruling that his claims were procedurally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28922 - 2007-05-07
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
his original complaint as barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion. Deering also appears
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=72142 - 2014-09-15
his original complaint as barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion. Deering also appears
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=72142 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
).1 Because Adell’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is procedurally barred and his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70527 - 2014-09-15
).1 Because Adell’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is procedurally barred and his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70527 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
of claim preclusion. Deering also appears to challenge the circuit court’s decision to strike the first
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72142 - 2011-10-11
of claim preclusion. Deering also appears to challenge the circuit court’s decision to strike the first
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72142 - 2011-10-11