Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 8701 - 8710 of 68963 for did.
Search results 8701 - 8710 of 68963 for did.
State v. Roberto V. Rodriguez
the trial lawyer: (1) did not object when the prosecutor asked the police-officer witnesses whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26019 - 2006-08-29
the trial lawyer: (1) did not object when the prosecutor asked the police-officer witnesses whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26019 - 2006-08-29
[PDF]
State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy
testimony concerning Adams’ statements about the location of Searcy’s residence did not violate Searcy’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20717 - 2017-09-21
testimony concerning Adams’ statements about the location of Searcy’s residence did not violate Searcy’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20717 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI APP 9
has failed to show that the plea colloquy was defective. Villegas’ attorney also did not perform
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=207784 - 2018-03-16
has failed to show that the plea colloquy was defective. Villegas’ attorney also did not perform
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=207784 - 2018-03-16
[PDF]
WI APP 47
and some friends had gone to a bar. K.A.B. consumed two drinks, which she did not leave unattended. She
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=168383 - 2017-09-21
and some friends had gone to a bar. K.A.B. consumed two drinks, which she did not leave unattended. She
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=168383 - 2017-09-21
State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy
Adams’ statements about the location of Searcy’s residence did not violate Searcy’s confrontation rights
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20717 - 2006-01-24
Adams’ statements about the location of Searcy’s residence did not violate Searcy’s confrontation rights
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20717 - 2006-01-24
Frontsheet
. § 970.02(1)(a) because it did not state the applicable mandatory minimum sentence, therefore entitling
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84833 - 2012-07-11
. § 970.02(1)(a) because it did not state the applicable mandatory minimum sentence, therefore entitling
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84833 - 2012-07-11
Frontsheet
Three issues concern us today. First, did the circuit court err when it compelled Donaubauer
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=37468 - 2009-07-09
Three issues concern us today. First, did the circuit court err when it compelled Donaubauer
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=37468 - 2009-07-09
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the blood test results, arguing that the warrant did not satisfy constitutional requirements because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=380917 - 2021-06-24
the blood test results, arguing that the warrant did not satisfy constitutional requirements because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=380917 - 2021-06-24
[PDF]
WI 90
. § 970.02(1)(a) because it did not state the applicable mandatory minimum sentence, therefore entitling
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84833 - 2014-09-15
. § 970.02(1)(a) because it did not state the applicable mandatory minimum sentence, therefore entitling
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84833 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
arguments; the court provided the jury with an exhibit during deliberations that the jury did not request
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1111740 - 2026-04-30
arguments; the court provided the jury with an exhibit during deliberations that the jury did not request
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1111740 - 2026-04-30