Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1911 - 1920 of 66208 for did.
Search results 1911 - 1920 of 66208 for did.
State v. Brian A. Patterson - 2013AP000749
house because McGowan was going to “shoot the house up” if Patterson did not pay. Patterson interrupted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=117631 - 2014-07-21
house because McGowan was going to “shoot the house up” if Patterson did not pay. Patterson interrupted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=117631 - 2014-07-21
[PDF]
State v. Kenny L. Warren - 2004AP000632
that his trial counsel was ineffective when he did not move to suppress the statements Warren gave
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19322 - 2017-09-21
that his trial counsel was ineffective when he did not move to suppress the statements Warren gave
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19322 - 2017-09-21
State v. Maurice S. Ewing - 2004AP002942
an apartment on Monterey, but did not know the apartment number. Ewing stated that on May 5 he had worked
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19333 - 2005-09-19
an apartment on Monterey, but did not know the apartment number. Ewing stated that on May 5 he had worked
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19333 - 2005-09-19
[PDF]
State v. David W. Stevens - 2009AP002057
to you.” Detective Haines testified at the suppression hearing that he did not say or do anything
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=56726 - 2014-09-15
to you.” Detective Haines testified at the suppression hearing that he did not say or do anything
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=56726 - 2014-09-15
State v. David W. Stevens - 2009AP002057
to talk to you.” Detective Haines testified at the suppression hearing that he did not say or do anything
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56726 - 2010-11-16
to talk to you.” Detective Haines testified at the suppression hearing that he did not say or do anything
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56726 - 2010-11-16
[PDF]
State v. Phillip K. Saeger - 2009AP002133
his confession. At the hearing on the motion, both detectives testified that they did not recall
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=53089 - 2014-09-15
his confession. At the hearing on the motion, both detectives testified that they did not recall
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=53089 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Jason Durocher - 2006AP002994
-CR 2 intoxication. Durocher contends that the arresting officer did not have reasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29994 - 2014-09-15
-CR 2 intoxication. Durocher contends that the arresting officer did not have reasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29994 - 2014-09-15
State v. Jason Durocher - 2006AP002994
that the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to perform the traffic stop. We agree and reverse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29994 - 2007-08-15
that the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to perform the traffic stop. We agree and reverse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29994 - 2007-08-15
[PDF]
Lester Bowen v. Village of Curtiss - 2000AP002436
, the first of which was: “Did the Village of Curtiss intentionally remove the sign post belonging
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3000 - 2017-09-19
, the first of which was: “Did the Village of Curtiss intentionally remove the sign post belonging
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3000 - 2017-09-19
Lester Bowen v. Village of Curtiss - 2000AP002436
was: “Did the Village of Curtiss intentionally remove the sign post belonging to Lester Bowen?” The jury
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3000 - 2005-03-31
was: “Did the Village of Curtiss intentionally remove the sign post belonging to Lester Bowen?” The jury
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3000 - 2005-03-31