Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12971 - 12980 of 38676 for financial disclosure statement.
Search results 12971 - 12980 of 38676 for financial disclosure statement.
State v. Armando M. Tia - 1994AP002440
that Pearl was in Texas and unavailable to testify, but argued that her statement to the 911 dispatcher
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8102 - 2005-03-31
that Pearl was in Texas and unavailable to testify, but argued that her statement to the 911 dispatcher
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8102 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Armando M. Tia - 1994AP002440
that Pearl was in Texas and unavailable to testify, but argued that her statement to the 911 dispatcher
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8102 - 2017-09-19
that Pearl was in Texas and unavailable to testify, but argued that her statement to the 911 dispatcher
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8102 - 2017-09-19
Antoine Hatchett v. David H. Schwarz - 2010AP001745
not have been revoked because the basis for revocation—Hatchett’s refusal to sign a statement given to his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60986 - 2011-03-14
not have been revoked because the basis for revocation—Hatchett’s refusal to sign a statement given to his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60986 - 2011-03-14
State v. Brent A. Graziano - 2005AP000550
was sentenced on the basis of inaccurate information in a victim impact statement and that the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19416 - 2005-08-30
was sentenced on the basis of inaccurate information in a victim impact statement and that the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19416 - 2005-08-30
[PDF]
State v. Brent A. Graziano - 2005AP000550
in a victim impact statement and 1 This is a one-judge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19416 - 2017-09-21
in a victim impact statement and 1 This is a one-judge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19416 - 2017-09-21
State v. Mark W. Bailey - 2008AP001747
to challenge the denial of his suppression motion. The issue is whether Bailey’s statements should
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41824 - 2009-10-05
to challenge the denial of his suppression motion. The issue is whether Bailey’s statements should
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41824 - 2009-10-05
[PDF]
State v. Mark W. Bailey - 2008AP001747
statements should be suppressed as involuntary because they were improperly induced
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=41824 - 2014-09-15
statements should be suppressed as involuntary because they were improperly induced
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=41824 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Lori Butteris v. Stan Christiansen - 1998AP001309
misrepresentations of fact, or that the statements he made had induced No. 98-1309 4 the bride’s mother
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13990 - 2014-09-15
misrepresentations of fact, or that the statements he made had induced No. 98-1309 4 the bride’s mother
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13990 - 2014-09-15
Lori Butteris v. Stan Christiansen - 1998AP001309
, or that the statements he made had induced the bride’s mother to enter into the contract.[2] The court concluded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13990 - 2005-03-31
, or that the statements he made had induced the bride’s mother to enter into the contract.[2] The court concluded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13990 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Antoine Hatchett v. David H. Schwarz - 2010AP001745
the basis for revocation—Hatchett’s refusal to sign a statement No. 2010AP1745 2 given to his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60986 - 2014-09-15
the basis for revocation—Hatchett’s refusal to sign a statement No. 2010AP1745 2 given to his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60986 - 2014-09-15