Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 10261 - 10270 of 61041 for quit claim deed/1000.
Search results 10261 - 10270 of 61041 for quit claim deed/1000.
MacFarlane Pheasant Farm, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin
PER CURIAM. MacFarlane Pheasant Farm, Inc., appeals a judgment dismissing its claim for fencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17944 - 2005-04-27
PER CURIAM. MacFarlane Pheasant Farm, Inc., appeals a judgment dismissing its claim for fencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17944 - 2005-04-27
Jennie K. Vasen v. Progressive Insurance Companies
a judgment dismissing her negligence, bad faith and gender discrimination claims against Jeffrey Buchanan
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16166 - 2005-03-31
a judgment dismissing her negligence, bad faith and gender discrimination claims against Jeffrey Buchanan
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16166 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
., and Peterson, J. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Carolyn and Gerald Langreder appeal an order dismissing their claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27054 - 2014-09-15
., and Peterson, J. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Carolyn and Gerald Langreder appeal an order dismissing their claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27054 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
dismissing their bad faith claim against their insurer, American Family, denying their request
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=155956 - 2017-09-21
dismissing their bad faith claim against their insurer, American Family, denying their request
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=155956 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
H. A. Friend & Company v. Professional Stationery, Inc.
. H.A. Friend & Company (Friend) appeals from that portion of a judgment dismissing its claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25421 - 2017-09-21
. H.A. Friend & Company (Friend) appeals from that portion of a judgment dismissing its claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25421 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. ¶2 Watertown made a claim for all of these clean-up costs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59109 - 2014-09-15
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. ¶2 Watertown made a claim for all of these clean-up costs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59109 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
Department of Natural Resources. ¶2 Watertown made a claim for all of these clean-up costs under its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59109 - 2011-02-22
Department of Natural Resources. ¶2 Watertown made a claim for all of these clean-up costs under its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59109 - 2011-02-22
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
dismissed their claims on the ground that WIS. STAT. § 181.0855(1) (2021-22)2 granted Barth immunity due
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=907115 - 2025-01-28
dismissed their claims on the ground that WIS. STAT. § 181.0855(1) (2021-22)2 granted Barth immunity due
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=907115 - 2025-01-28
[PDF]
NOTICE
. The circuit court concluded that the County’s claim was precluded by an earlier action in Sauk County
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33677 - 2014-09-15
. The circuit court concluded that the County’s claim was precluded by an earlier action in Sauk County
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33677 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
. § 974.06 (2005-06).[1] He seeks reversal of his conviction for five reasons. He claims that: (1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30270 - 2007-09-17
. § 974.06 (2005-06).[1] He seeks reversal of his conviction for five reasons. He claims that: (1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30270 - 2007-09-17