Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11191 - 11200 of 72798 for we.
Search results 11191 - 11200 of 72798 for we.
[PDF]
WI 132
of felony theft, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 943.20. ¶2 In October 2005, we vacated an order of the court
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27542 - 2014-09-15
of felony theft, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 943.20. ¶2 In October 2005, we vacated an order of the court
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27542 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Frontsheet
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Affirmed. ¶1 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J. We
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=159666 - 2017-09-21
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Affirmed. ¶1 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J. We
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=159666 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI App 47
contracts between the parties, which we refer to as “the Farm Lease Agreement” and “the Drain Tile
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=828307 - 2024-09-11
contracts between the parties, which we refer to as “the Farm Lease Agreement” and “the Drain Tile
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=828307 - 2024-09-11
[PDF]
WI 74
ROGGENSACK, J. We review a published decision of the court of appeals,1 which reversed in part
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=37485 - 2014-09-15
ROGGENSACK, J. We review a published decision of the court of appeals,1 which reversed in part
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=37485 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the judgment entered in favor of Streuly. For the reasons stated below, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=908199 - 2025-01-30
the judgment entered in favor of Streuly. For the reasons stated below, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=908199 - 2025-01-30
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the judgment entered in favor of Streuly. For the reasons stated below, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=927852 - 2025-03-13
the judgment entered in favor of Streuly. For the reasons stated below, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=927852 - 2025-03-13
Frontsheet
right to due process by rendering his guilty plea unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary. ¶5 We
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143084 - 2015-06-11
right to due process by rendering his guilty plea unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary. ¶5 We
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143084 - 2015-06-11
[PDF]
Frontsheet
. ¶5 We assume, without deciding, that the circuit court erred in excluding the additional evidence
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=143084 - 2017-09-21
. ¶5 We assume, without deciding, that the circuit court erred in excluding the additional evidence
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=143084 - 2017-09-21
State v. Juan M. Orta
to challenge the search. ¶2 We reverse the trial court’s order. We conclude that an individual who
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5155 - 2005-03-31
to challenge the search. ¶2 We reverse the trial court’s order. We conclude that an individual who
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5155 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Carlos Santiago
and intelligently waived his Miranda rights.2 We conclude that the trial court's conclusion that Santiago
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7862 - 2017-09-19
and intelligently waived his Miranda rights.2 We conclude that the trial court's conclusion that Santiago
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7862 - 2017-09-19