Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11411 - 11420 of 58500 for speedy trial.
Search results 11411 - 11420 of 58500 for speedy trial.
COURT OF APPEALS
(1)(a). Because we conclude that: (1) the trial court erred when it allowed the admission
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30943 - 2007-11-26
(1)(a). Because we conclude that: (1) the trial court erred when it allowed the admission
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30943 - 2007-11-26
Robert L. Hartzell v. Paulette Hartzell
, and granting joint legal custody. Luke contends that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to state
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9304 - 2005-03-31
, and granting joint legal custody. Luke contends that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to state
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9304 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
postconviction motion for a new trial. He asks this court to exercise our discretionary power of reversal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=46374 - 2014-09-15
postconviction motion for a new trial. He asks this court to exercise our discretionary power of reversal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=46374 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Stephanie Roberts v. Robby Joseph Roberts
, the court precluded Robby from submitting evidence. Robby argues: (1) the trial court erroneously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7568 - 2017-09-19
, the court precluded Robby from submitting evidence. Robby argues: (1) the trial court erroneously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7568 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Robert L. Hartzell v. Paulette Hartzell
. Luke contends that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to state in writing why its No. 95
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9304 - 2017-09-19
. Luke contends that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to state in writing why its No. 95
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9304 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
(2007-08),[1] and the order denying his postconviction motion for a new trial. He asks this court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46374 - 2010-01-27
(2007-08),[1] and the order denying his postconviction motion for a new trial. He asks this court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46374 - 2010-01-27
[PDF]
NOTICE
of WIS. STAT. § 946.49(1)(a). Because we conclude that: (1) the trial court erred when it allowed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30943 - 2014-09-15
of WIS. STAT. § 946.49(1)(a). Because we conclude that: (1) the trial court erred when it allowed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30943 - 2014-09-15
Stephanie Roberts v. Robby Joseph Roberts
submitting evidence. Robby argues: (1) the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it failed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7568 - 2005-03-31
submitting evidence. Robby argues: (1) the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it failed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7568 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. The trial court held that the “Late Payment Agreement” they negotiated with Cordes was unenforceable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=619577 - 2023-02-08
. The trial court held that the “Late Payment Agreement” they negotiated with Cordes was unenforceable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=619577 - 2023-02-08
[PDF]
State v. James B. Williams
trial and appellate counsel were ineffective; and (5) his sentence was unduly harsh. He contends
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5785 - 2017-09-19
trial and appellate counsel were ineffective; and (5) his sentence was unduly harsh. He contends
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5785 - 2017-09-19