Search for: "State v. Quintana"
Results 61 - 80
of 85
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
Quintana, 827 P.2d 509, 525 (Colo. 1992) (“[defendant’s] compliance with the Food and Drug Administration’s recommendations . [read post]
22 Oct 2012, 5:26 am
State v. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 8:55 am
State v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 5:45 am
, United States v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 9:41 am
See Weiss v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 9:49 am
Here, as in United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2011, 9:01 pm
United States v. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 6:00 am
United States v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 6:39 am
United States v. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:08 pm
Supreme Court, June 17, 2010 City of Ontario v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 4:17 am
Quintana v. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 6:00 am
The "to the satisfaction of the court" language is identical to language in the DVPA.[ 2 ] In Quintana v. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 8:08 am
See Franks v. [read post]
7 Aug 2009, 9:38 am
§ 893.117, both first degree misdemeanors.After the misdemeanor charges were filed, the State has only 90 days to bring the case to trial unless the defendant waives her rights to a speedy trial. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 3:02 pm
United States v. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 4:51 am
United States v. [read post]
6 May 2009, 3:15 am
Quintana, 594 F. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 3:57 am
United States v. [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 6:49 am
State v. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 6:30 am
MHS v. [read post]
