Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11361 - 11370 of 73661 for we.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
was convicted; he also raised several claims of ineffective assistance by his trial counsel. Upon review, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=632219 - 2023-03-14

Mark Regal v. General Motors Corporation
of $1753.64. We reverse the portion of the judgment awarding 12% interest from October 17, 2001, on the award
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5016 - 2005-03-31

2007 WI APP 141
of their jointly held patent.[1] We uphold the trial court’s findings that the parties orally agreed to assign
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28909 - 2007-06-26

[PDF] WI App 72
) does not operate to toll the statute of limitations as to Barnes/McCarthy, we affirm. BACKGROUND
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36214 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Franklin Gillette
or underinsured motorist benefits under the State Farm policies. ¶2 We agree that Gillette and Ostlund
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2351 - 2017-09-19

Village of DeForest v. County of Dane
due process, and just compensation. We are not persuaded by any of Flying J’s arguments, and we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10901 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] WI 120
and ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding, which totaled $14,396.78 as of August 1, 2012. ¶3 We
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=89817 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Patricia A. Steiner v. Wisconsin American Mutual Insurance Company
. STAT. § 846.30 (2001-02), 1 we agree with the circuit court that Steiner Corporation did not own
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6700 - 2017-09-20

Anthony Ambrose v. Continental Insurance Company
the issue of whether he was driving the car. We conclude that the trial court did not erroneously exercise
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10880 - 2005-03-31

Marcus P. Paulhe v. Monica M. Riley
We agree that the family court’s grant of credit to Marcus did not constitute a revision of the child
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25792 - 2006-09-14