Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 9491 - 9500 of 57315 for id.

COURT OF APPEALS
interpretation of the statute “if it is reasonable, even though an alternative view is also reasonable.” Id. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55769 - 2010-10-20

COURT OF APPEALS
remain with the plaintiff. Id. at 610. ¶7 The ultimate basis for the Jindra holding, however
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74092 - 2011-11-21

State v. Donyil Anderson
of the defendant's Department of Transportation (DOT) driving record. Id. at 16-17. The court further held
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10935 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Christopher J. Laing-Martinez
. We accord great deference to the trier of fact. Id. We “view the facts in the light most
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25248 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Anthony J. Rychtik
that there is a new factor justifying a motion to modify a sentence. Id. A new factor is a fact or set of facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4659 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] State v. Shane A. Mahler
]he integrity of an individual’s person is a cherished value of our society,” id. at 772, the Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16107 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Anthony J. Rychtik
that there is a new factor justifying a motion to modify a sentence. Id. A new factor is a fact or set of facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4660 - 2017-09-19

State v. Reinaldo C. Acosta
and fact. Id. at 165. This court defers to the trial court’s factual findings and reverses them only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19911 - 2005-10-10

State v. James A. Newson
not address both components of this inquiry if the defendant does not make a sufficient showing on one. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7322 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
that was potentially exculpatory? Id. at 67. Our review of the circuit court’s application of this constitutional
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=47193 - 2010-02-23