Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 9731 - 9740 of 49819 for our.
Search results 9731 - 9740 of 49819 for our.
COURT OF APPEALS
are unduly speculative. We disagree, and on this basis reverse. ¶13 Our review of the circuit court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=136661 - 2015-03-04
are unduly speculative. We disagree, and on this basis reverse. ¶13 Our review of the circuit court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=136661 - 2015-03-04
State v. Timmy J. Reichling
and the commission of the predicate drug offense. Our supreme court held that the "while possessing" language
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7957 - 2005-03-31
and the commission of the predicate drug offense. Our supreme court held that the "while possessing" language
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7957 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. § 854.06(3). We begin by setting forth our standard of review and the governing principles regarding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=654431 - 2023-05-11
. § 854.06(3). We begin by setting forth our standard of review and the governing principles regarding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=654431 - 2023-05-11
[PDF]
State v. Timothy Scott Bailey Smith, Sr.
not in any way change our analysis of the elements of the crime. No. 03-1698-CR 5 predicate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6621 - 2017-09-19
not in any way change our analysis of the elements of the crime. No. 03-1698-CR 5 predicate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6621 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of granular examination of every potentially applicable sentencing consideration is not required by our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=987430 - 2025-07-23
of granular examination of every potentially applicable sentencing consideration is not required by our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=987430 - 2025-07-23
[PDF]
State v. Rock K. Ingram
the admission of evidence. Under our deferential review of such claims, we gauge whether the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9882 - 2017-09-19
the admission of evidence. Under our deferential review of such claims, we gauge whether the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9882 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
deciding, that there is no material distinction for purposes of our analysis between the hearing officer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=236287 - 2019-02-28
deciding, that there is no material distinction for purposes of our analysis between the hearing officer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=236287 - 2019-02-28
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 16, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of ...
of those issues. ¶9 In our original opinion, we rejected the University’s argument that Kang could
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27160 - 2006-11-15
of those issues. ¶9 In our original opinion, we rejected the University’s argument that Kang could
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27160 - 2006-11-15
COURT OF APPEALS
to -- you know, we’re not going to waste your time. We’re not going to waste our time. You know how
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98666 - 2013-07-01
to -- you know, we’re not going to waste your time. We’re not going to waste our time. You know how
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98666 - 2013-07-01
State v. Jesus Barbary
transcripts. In addition to the other arguments raised on appeal, Barbary contends that our decision denying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11590 - 2005-03-31
transcripts. In addition to the other arguments raised on appeal, Barbary contends that our decision denying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11590 - 2005-03-31