Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 941 - 950 of 68458 for did.
Search results 941 - 950 of 68458 for did.
COURT OF APPEALS
asserts that she did not correctly understand the time component of a CHIPS element. Angela also
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82885 - 2015-08-30
asserts that she did not correctly understand the time component of a CHIPS element. Angela also
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82885 - 2015-08-30
State v. Christopher L. Ambort
and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, because (1) the arresting officer did not issue a Notice of Intent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26093 - 2006-08-02
and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, because (1) the arresting officer did not issue a Notice of Intent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26093 - 2006-08-02
[PDF]
Andrea L. Propper v. Ryan T. Propper
the weekend he did not have placement, and additional hours on the Thursday before his weekend placement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=24543 - 2017-09-21
the weekend he did not have placement, and additional hours on the Thursday before his weekend placement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=24543 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
admitted statements made by the victim to various people after the victim had testified that she did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30565 - 2014-09-15
admitted statements made by the victim to various people after the victim had testified that she did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30565 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Christopher L. Ambort
, because (1) the arresting officer did not issue a Notice of Intent to Revoke immediately after he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26093 - 2017-09-21
, because (1) the arresting officer did not issue a Notice of Intent to Revoke immediately after he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26093 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
did not inform Thomas of his Miranda rights because Thomas was not in custody. Thomas
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=73304 - 2011-11-08
did not inform Thomas of his Miranda rights because Thomas was not in custody. Thomas
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=73304 - 2011-11-08
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the plea colloquy that she faced a fine of up to $20,000 when the maximum actually was $100,000; did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=245838 - 2019-09-04
the plea colloquy that she faced a fine of up to $20,000 when the maximum actually was $100,000; did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=245838 - 2019-09-04
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
Davis that he did not work for him, and had called him a “joke.” Davis also stated that Attorney
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=572415 - 2022-10-04
Davis that he did not work for him, and had called him a “joke.” Davis also stated that Attorney
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=572415 - 2022-10-04
State v. Robert J. Capps
a postconviction motion to withdraw his pleas in which he contended that he did not understand the elements
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12302 - 2005-03-31
a postconviction motion to withdraw his pleas in which he contended that he did not understand the elements
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12302 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
argues the circuit court did not comply with the statutory requirements for granting Constance’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46877 - 2010-02-08
argues the circuit court did not comply with the statutory requirements for granting Constance’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46877 - 2010-02-08