Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11041 - 11050 of 44347 for name change.

Carolyn A. Smiley v. William A. Smiley
. The trial court found a substantial change of circumstances consisting primarily of William's greatly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7796 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
the motions insufficient, the trial court later ordered briefing.2 The State asserted that the change
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=97212 - 2014-09-15

James Reese v. City of Pewaukee
in a correspondingly higher property tax liability. The mailing address for the parcel in question had changed in 1997
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3780 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Fond du Lac County Department of Social Services v. Samuel S.
did not recite or propose any change in placement. It also explains why Judge Grimm’s extension
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11899 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS
was a substantial change of circumstances that warranted an increased maintenance obligation. We reverse and remand
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78373 - 2012-02-21

[PDF] Juneau County v. Sauk County
, J. Juneau County appeals an order denying its motion for a change of the county of residence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12469 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] James Reese v. City of Pewaukee
in question had changed in 1997 and, although the City had notice of the change as early as February 1998
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3780 - 2017-09-19

Juneau County v. Sauk County
. ROGGENSACK, J. Juneau County appeals an order denying its motion for a change of the county of residence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12469 - 2005-03-31

Patricia Hebert v. Thomas J. Hebert
maintenance. This markedly changes our appellate perspective. Although a request for maintenance modification
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13091 - 2005-03-31

Fond du Lac County Department of Social Services v. Samuel S.
or propose any change in placement. It also explains why Judge Grimm’s extension order did not recite any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11899 - 2005-03-31