Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 8531 - 8540 of 64251 for records/1000.
Search results 8531 - 8540 of 64251 for records/1000.
State v. Estella Marie Iddings
, Iddings’ response, and an independent review of the record, we conclude there is no arguable merit to any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11451 - 2005-03-31
, Iddings’ response, and an independent review of the record, we conclude there is no arguable merit to any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11451 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
that were not in the appellate record.[1] We conclude that most of Brown’s allegations are procedurally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44824 - 2009-12-21
that were not in the appellate record.[1] We conclude that most of Brown’s allegations are procedurally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44824 - 2009-12-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. No. 2020AP1668-CRNM 2 consideration of the report and an independent review of the record as mandated
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=489155 - 2022-03-02
. No. 2020AP1668-CRNM 2 consideration of the report and an independent review of the record as mandated
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=489155 - 2022-03-02
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
2 the record and counsel’s report, we conclude that there are no issues with arguable merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=157140 - 2017-09-21
2 the record and counsel’s report, we conclude that there are no issues with arguable merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=157140 - 2017-09-21
CA Blank Order
consideration of the report and an independent review of the record as mandated by Anders and Rule 809.32, we
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143763 - 2015-06-30
consideration of the report and an independent review of the record as mandated by Anders and Rule 809.32, we
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143763 - 2015-06-30
CA Blank Order
not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92790 - 2013-02-11
not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92790 - 2013-02-11
[PDF]
Stephen W. Jones v. Eleanor Swoboda
, is the record custodian at CCI. Jones commenced this action because he was dissatisfied with the response
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9673 - 2017-09-19
, is the record custodian at CCI. Jones commenced this action because he was dissatisfied with the response
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9673 - 2017-09-19
CA Blank Order
of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we conclude there is no arguable merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98450 - 2013-06-24
of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we conclude there is no arguable merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98450 - 2013-06-24
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the record as mandated by Anders and RULE 809.32, we summarily affirm the judgment because
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=101791 - 2017-09-21
of the record as mandated by Anders and RULE 809.32, we summarily affirm the judgment because
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=101791 - 2017-09-21
CA Blank Order
not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102924 - 2013-10-14
not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102924 - 2013-10-14