Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11901 - 11910 of 50086 for our.

[PDF] NOTICE
. Based on our review of the record, we uphold the trial court’s order and affirm the judgments
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=37982 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Dennis L. Farr
that back up”—were not themselves threatening, his conviction cannot stand. We disagree. We think our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11376 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] WI APP 165
of facts is a question of law, which we review de novo.). However, despite our de novo standard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34369 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] WI APP 98
N.W.2d 12. DISCUSSION ¶6 We start our discussion with the language of the statute. State ex
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=99397 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] NOTICE
arguments to the best of our ability based upon his submissions, but to the extent that some of his claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52591 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Randall K. Mataya
—that the prosecutor withheld evidence and the evidence was favorable to the defendant—are satisfied. Our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13671 - 2017-09-21

[PDF]
that the reliability of the investigator’s testimony and his questionable use of an unreliable CI are relevant to our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=676250 - 2023-07-07

[PDF] State v. Chad Everts
make it clear right now we are going to have adherence to our rules in the courts.… [Y]ou know what
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3758 - 2017-09-19

2007 WI APP 169
. App. 1994). Our supreme court’s decisions have assumed that this right to a trial by jury includes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29338 - 2007-07-24

[PDF] WI APP 31
. STAT. § 971.20(4), our supreme court unmistakably held in Mace, 193 Wis. 2d at 218, that “[t]here
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=792437 - 2024-06-20