Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1161 - 1170 of 19195 for inmates search.

[PDF] CA Blank Order
available to Stapleton as an indigent inmate was service by mail, and thus any failure in service must
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=148918 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS
reasonable minds could arrive at the same conclusion…. The inmate has the burden of proving
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131864 - 2014-12-22

Robert E. Taliaferro, Jr. v. Judy Smith
department may discipline inmates in its legal custody,” so long as the inmates have not already been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18891 - 2005-07-06

Joeddie Smith v. Gary R. McCaughtry
respect for the Vice Lords at WCI. ¶3 Smith requested the investigating officer and inmate Tony
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18010 - 2005-05-04

[PDF] Robert E. Taliaferro, Jr. v. Judy Smith
]he department may discipline inmates in its legal custody,” so long as the inmates have
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18891 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] NOTICE
that an inmate serving a sentence in a county jail “is eligible to earn good time in the amount of one-fourth
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38058 - 2014-09-15

Larry E. Olson v. Jon Litscher
corpus in this court; the DOC has no authority to hold an inmate in custody beyond his or her mandatory
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15428 - 2005-03-31

09AP574 State v. Gerald A. LaDue.doc
statutes. We begin with Wis. Stat. § 302.43, which provides that an inmate serving a sentence in a county
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=38058 - 2009-07-21

[PDF] James R. Matlouck v. Randall R. Hepp
on uncharged sex offenses did not violate due process because inmate had no liberty interest in discretionary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26583 - 2017-09-21

James R. Matlouck v. Randall R. Hepp
not violate due process because inmate had no liberty interest in discretionary parole determination); Neal v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26583 - 2006-09-27