Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11821 - 11830 of 63428 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 11821 - 11830 of 63428 for Motion for joint custody.
State v. Shawn P. Krawczyk
considered himself or herself to be ‘in custody’ given the degree of restraint under the circumstances
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12598 - 2005-03-31
considered himself or herself to be ‘in custody’ given the degree of restraint under the circumstances
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12598 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. In October 2019, Mulligan filed a motion asking the circuit court to “determin[e] the heirs of the decedent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=460450 - 2021-12-07
. In October 2019, Mulligan filed a motion asking the circuit court to “determin[e] the heirs of the decedent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=460450 - 2021-12-07
2008 WI APP 54
the appellants’ motion to amend their complaint. As we note below, our review of the circuit court’s decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32124 - 2008-04-29
the appellants’ motion to amend their complaint. As we note below, our review of the circuit court’s decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32124 - 2008-04-29
State v. Ronald Keith
, and the subsequent order committing him to the custody of the State of Wisconsin, Department of Health and Family
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11268 - 2005-03-31
, and the subsequent order committing him to the custody of the State of Wisconsin, Department of Health and Family
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11268 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. ¶17 The circuit court denied Guyton’s motion for a directed verdict. The court first determined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=294320 - 2020-10-06
. ¶17 The circuit court denied Guyton’s motion for a directed verdict. The court first determined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=294320 - 2020-10-06
COURT OF APPEALS
–12).[1] He also appeals from an order denying his motion for resentencing. He argues that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=112198 - 2014-05-12
–12).[1] He also appeals from an order denying his motion for resentencing. He argues that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=112198 - 2014-05-12
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
denying his motion for resentencing. He argues that he is entitled to resentencing because: (1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=112198 - 2017-09-21
denying his motion for resentencing. He argues that he is entitled to resentencing because: (1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=112198 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
(the “August 2016 case”). 2 He also appeals the orders denying his motions for a new trial. 3 ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=213814 - 2018-06-05
(the “August 2016 case”). 2 He also appeals the orders denying his motions for a new trial. 3 ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=213814 - 2018-06-05
[PDF]
WI App 36
denying Daniel J. Rejholec’s motion to suppress certain incriminating statements made during the course
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=962250 - 2025-06-25
denying Daniel J. Rejholec’s motion to suppress certain incriminating statements made during the course
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=962250 - 2025-06-25
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
Court Case No. 2021CF2139 While Dale was in custody in connection with Case No. 2020CF3236, the State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=770181 - 2024-03-05
Court Case No. 2021CF2139 While Dale was in custody in connection with Case No. 2020CF3236, the State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=770181 - 2024-03-05