Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5471 - 5480 of 68458 for did.
Search results 5471 - 5480 of 68458 for did.
[PDF]
State v. Catherine M. Parrilli
. It based its decision largely on Nelson’s testimony that he did not see Parrilli drive the car, he did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17867 - 2017-09-21
. It based its decision largely on Nelson’s testimony that he did not see Parrilli drive the car, he did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17867 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that it had it issued a new injunction with the same terms as the previous one, and that it did not have
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=66566 - 2014-09-15
that it had it issued a new injunction with the same terms as the previous one, and that it did not have
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=66566 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
La Crosse County DHS v. Sharon P.
litem did not object to the discovery order. ¶3 On February 11, 2005, a status hearing was held
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20574 - 2017-09-21
litem did not object to the discovery order. ¶3 On February 11, 2005, a status hearing was held
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20574 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
proceeded under the assumption that it did not need to prove the amount of the expansion, but rather simply
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46368 - 2010-01-27
proceeded under the assumption that it did not need to prove the amount of the expansion, but rather simply
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46368 - 2010-01-27
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
rejected the proposed agreement. It did not clearly state any specific reason for doing so. At first
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=217835 - 2018-08-16
rejected the proposed agreement. It did not clearly state any specific reason for doing so. At first
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=217835 - 2018-08-16
[PDF]
NOTICE
suppression motion.1 Because the police officer’s actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment, we affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59738 - 2014-09-15
suppression motion.1 Because the police officer’s actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment, we affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59738 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. David V. Pugh, Sr.
a vehicle approaching the intersection on Highway 131. The vehicle did not come to a complete stop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7538 - 2017-09-19
a vehicle approaching the intersection on Highway 131. The vehicle did not come to a complete stop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7538 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Larry D. Hicks
seventy-two hours of the disorderly conduct incident. Because the trial court did not erroneously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18372 - 2017-09-21
seventy-two hours of the disorderly conduct incident. Because the trial court did not erroneously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18372 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Steven C. Wizner
will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. See id. Wizner argues that the trial court did not advise
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12183 - 2017-09-21
will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. See id. Wizner argues that the trial court did not advise
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12183 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Douglas T. Meyer
pleas or be resentenced because: (1) the State did not follow the procedure set out in WIS. STAT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3811 - 2017-09-20
pleas or be resentenced because: (1) the State did not follow the procedure set out in WIS. STAT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3811 - 2017-09-20