Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 8941 - 8950 of 63725 for Motion for joint custody.

[PDF] State v. Harry Moore
for a controlled substance felony. The issue is whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15640 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] CA Blank Order
order that denied Jarrett’s motion to modify custody, physical placement, and child support. Based
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=827966 - 2024-07-18

CA Blank Order
, on the record at the hearing on the motion to modify placement. Second, Christensen’s contention in his reply
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=95064 - 2013-04-02

[PDF] CA Blank Order
order that denied Jarrett’s motion to modify custody, physical placement, and child support. Based
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=827966 - 2024-07-18

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 15, 2013 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Ap...
counts of witness intimidation. He also appeals from the order denying his motion for postconviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102961 - 2013-10-14

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
also appeals from the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm. BACKGROUND
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=102961 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS
).[1] He also appeals a postconviction order that denied his motions to withdraw his guilty plea
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=118163 - 2014-07-28

[PDF] SC Table of Pending Cases - Added oral argument dates for October 2012
If a suspect in custody initiates communication with the police after previously invoking his Miranda right
/sc/sccase/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=85725 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Charles W. Mark
. In response to the State’s motion in limine, the court ruled that the evidence was not relevant, although
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6732 - 2017-09-20

State v. Charles W. Mark
probation as well as the rules of his supervision at trial. In response to the State’s motion in limine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6732 - 2005-05-09