Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 10731 - 10740 of 83455 for simple case search.
Search results 10731 - 10740 of 83455 for simple case search.
State v. Darwin J. Pamanet
affirmed. The facts of the case are undisputed. At approximately 7:20 a.m
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13604 - 2005-03-31
affirmed. The facts of the case are undisputed. At approximately 7:20 a.m
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13604 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Aaron C. Tuomi
activity. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22 at ¶28. ¶7 The State attempts to analogize Tuomi’s case to Rutzinski
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5472 - 2017-09-19
activity. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22 at ¶28. ¶7 The State attempts to analogize Tuomi’s case to Rutzinski
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5472 - 2017-09-19
State v. Cleansoils Wisconsin, Inc.
failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of selective enforcement. Finally, we determine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15370 - 2005-03-31
failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of selective enforcement. Finally, we determine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15370 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Cleansoils Wisconsin, Inc.
decide that CleanSoils failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of selective enforcement. Finally, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15370 - 2017-09-21
decide that CleanSoils failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of selective enforcement. Finally, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15370 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
JD-1745 Dispositional Order (Delinquent)
OF Name Date of Birth Amended Dispositional Order – Delinquent Case
/formdisplay/JD-1745.pdf?formNumber=JD-1745&formType=Form&formatId=2&language=en - 2025-07-10
OF Name Date of Birth Amended Dispositional Order – Delinquent Case
/formdisplay/JD-1745.pdf?formNumber=JD-1745&formType=Form&formatId=2&language=en - 2025-07-10
State v. Sheila K. LaFortune
in this case. In addition, the court concluded that LaFortune’s request to wait on the draw was unreasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6999 - 2005-03-31
in this case. In addition, the court concluded that LaFortune’s request to wait on the draw was unreasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6999 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Sheila K. LaFortune
for the actual arrest necessary to justify a warrantless draw and that there was probable cause in this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6999 - 2017-09-20
for the actual arrest necessary to justify a warrantless draw and that there was probable cause in this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6999 - 2017-09-20
COURT OF APPEALS
(6). Our role on appeal is to search the record for evidence supporting the Commission’s factual
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143554 - 2015-06-29
(6). Our role on appeal is to search the record for evidence supporting the Commission’s factual
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143554 - 2015-06-29
[PDF]
Village of Pleasant Prairie v. Maureen M. McCarragher
unreasonable searches and seizures. ¶3 Bandi testified at the motion hearing that on July 6, 2002
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5989 - 2017-09-19
unreasonable searches and seizures. ¶3 Bandi testified at the motion hearing that on July 6, 2002
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5989 - 2017-09-19
Douglas County v. Steven Leinweber
the “totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 139-40. ¶7 In this case the two-step standard of review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2224 - 2005-03-31
the “totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 139-40. ¶7 In this case the two-step standard of review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2224 - 2005-03-31