Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 9701 - 9710 of 63511 for records.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
on the court’s decision to admit a medical record into evidence at trial. We assume without deciding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=581957 - 2022-10-27

[PDF] Karl C. Williams v. Northern Technical Services, Inc.
(1984). Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party establishes a record sufficient
/ca/errata/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9804 - 2017-09-19

State v. Roosevelt Williams
to be clearly erroneous. The findings are supported by the record, as it was developed at the evidentiary
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17128 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Roosevelt Williams
' initial approach to the vehicle, it is unclear from the record at what point the officers observed
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17128 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Director of State Courts Address 2021
accepting filings and providing access to court records, particularly if the office must close or function
/publications/speeches/docs/diraddress21.pdf - 2021-11-03

James T. Fritz v. Mary D. Fritz
not have been relied on by the court because the court did not examine him on the record about whether he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13692 - 2005-03-31

State v. Russell L. Zuerner
to counsel. We agree that, on the present record, Zuerner has made a prima facie showing that his prior
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4344 - 2005-03-31

State v. Ritchie H. Dumer
"for the record ... I have had discussions with the district attorney concerning a potential plea arrangement. I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7721 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
, the supplemental no-merit report, and Taylor’s response, and we have independently reviewed the record
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=547552 - 2022-07-26

State v. Harold Richard Nero
of twenty-two years and nine months. However, he argues that the trial court did not “state for the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7578 - 2005-03-31