Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 101 - 110 of 4789 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) pintu double besi minimalis Arjasa Kabupaten Situbondo Jawa Timur.

Frontsheet
of double damages and reasonable costs for legal representation under Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1) (2003-04)[2
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=79674 - 2012-06-07

[PDF] WI 26
the plaintiffs' motion for payment of double damages and reasonable costs for legal representation under Wis
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=79674 - 2014-09-15

State v. Rachel W. Kelty
waived any double jeopardy defect by pleading guilty to both counts. A divided court of appeals reversed
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25869 - 2006-07-11

[PDF] State v. Rachel W. Kelty
. The circuit court concluded that Kelty had waived any double jeopardy defect by pleading guilty to both
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25869 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS
and failed to double the damages award to the Tomtens for the wrongful withholding of the security deposit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=142512 - 2015-05-27

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
their motion for reasonable attorney’s fees and failed to double the damages award to No. 2014AP1387
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=142512 - 2017-09-21

State v. Wyatt Daniel Henning
issues of double jeopardy. The State seeks review of a published decision of the court of appeals,[1
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16625 - 2009-10-13

[PDF] WI APP 12
and an order of the circuit court denying its request for double damages under WIS. STAT. § 26.21(1) (2007-08
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=57319 - 2014-09-15

2011 WI APP 12
a judgment and an order of the circuit court denying its request for double damages under Wis. Stat. § 26.21
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=57319 - 2011-01-30

State v. John A. Lettice
when it dismissed the case on double jeopardy grounds because: (1) Lettice's conviction was reversed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13425 - 2005-03-31