Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11311 - 11320 of 72810 for we.
Search results 11311 - 11320 of 72810 for we.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
to detective in the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). We conclude that the Board acted within its authority
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=616559 - 2023-01-31
to detective in the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). We conclude that the Board acted within its authority
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=616559 - 2023-01-31
[PDF]
WI APP 90
that Vollbrecht met the test for obtaining a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We reject
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=85353 - 2014-09-15
that Vollbrecht met the test for obtaining a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We reject
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=85353 - 2014-09-15
State v. John T. Trochinski, Jr.
We reject both of Trochinski's arguments and affirm the court of appeals' decision. First, we
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16421 - 2005-03-31
We reject both of Trochinski's arguments and affirm the court of appeals' decision. First, we
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16421 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. John T. Trochinski, Jr.
protected expression. No. 00-2545-CR 3 ¶3 We reject both of Trochinski's arguments
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16421 - 2017-09-21
protected expression. No. 00-2545-CR 3 ¶3 We reject both of Trochinski's arguments
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16421 - 2017-09-21
State v. Shirley J. Peters
v. Head, 2002 WI 99, No. 99-3071-CR, we reverse and remand to the trial court for two reasons
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3663 - 2005-03-31
v. Head, 2002 WI 99, No. 99-3071-CR, we reverse and remand to the trial court for two reasons
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3663 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
). ¶2 We conclude that WIS. STAT. § 51.20(10)(b)’s mandated time limit for the filing of the two
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=913923 - 2025-02-11
). ¶2 We conclude that WIS. STAT. § 51.20(10)(b)’s mandated time limit for the filing of the two
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=913923 - 2025-02-11
Kathy Higgins v. Kentucky Fried Chicken
in the record, we have no way to determine whether the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13830 - 2005-03-31
in the record, we have no way to determine whether the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13830 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
or defense-of- others instruction at trial. ¶2 We reject Mares’s arguments. First, we conclude that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=987305 - 2025-07-23
or defense-of- others instruction at trial. ¶2 We reject Mares’s arguments. First, we conclude that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=987305 - 2025-07-23
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
We reverse in part and conclude Schroeder was entitled to double damages. Under the circumstances
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118461 - 2014-09-15
We reverse in part and conclude Schroeder was entitled to double damages. Under the circumstances
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118461 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
“no impact” on the teachers’ wages, hours or conditions of employment. We disagree and affirm the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12774 - 2017-09-21
“no impact” on the teachers’ wages, hours or conditions of employment. We disagree and affirm the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12774 - 2017-09-21