Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11921 - 11930 of 58559 for o j.
Search results 11921 - 11930 of 58559 for o j.
COURT OF APPEALS
to be corrected,” to which Trotter responded, “[n]o, sir.” [2] These allegations must be alleged in the motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52530 - 2010-07-26
to be corrected,” to which Trotter responded, “[n]o, sir.” [2] These allegations must be alleged in the motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52530 - 2010-07-26
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, 2015, we recounted that appeal No. 2015AP1715 had been dismissed. We added that “[t]o the extent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=190768 - 2017-09-21
, 2015, we recounted that appeal No. 2015AP1715 had been dismissed. We added that “[t]o the extent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=190768 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. “[O]ur review ultimately is limited to whether that discretion was properly exercised.” Welytok
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=884685 - 2024-12-04
. “[O]ur review ultimately is limited to whether that discretion was properly exercised.” Welytok
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=884685 - 2024-12-04
COURT OF APPEALS
concludes that “[t]o the extent that the court imposed a sentence in this case based upon the defendant’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93052 - 2013-02-25
concludes that “[t]o the extent that the court imposed a sentence in this case based upon the defendant’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93052 - 2013-02-25
[PDF]
State v. Samuel Jones
, article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides: “[N]o person for the same offense may be put
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2896 - 2017-09-19
, article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides: “[N]o person for the same offense may be put
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2896 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
NOTICE
for his conduct, but summarized Veloz’s position by explaining, “[s]o whether Mr. Veloz actually heard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=51410 - 2014-09-15
for his conduct, but summarized Veloz’s position by explaining, “[s]o whether Mr. Veloz actually heard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=51410 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
from three proposed witnesses. One averred that “[n]o gun was found.” Another averred that she
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=43579 - 2009-11-16
from three proposed witnesses. One averred that “[n]o gun was found.” Another averred that she
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=43579 - 2009-11-16
COURT OF APPEALS
, but summarized Veloz’s position by explaining, “[s]o whether Mr. Veloz actually heard what the police said
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=51410 - 2010-06-28
, but summarized Veloz’s position by explaining, “[s]o whether Mr. Veloz actually heard what the police said
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=51410 - 2010-06-28
COURT OF APPEALS
bought these parcels from Darrel. “[O]nly recently, within the past three weeks,” did Leonard “discover
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=137952 - 2015-03-18
bought these parcels from Darrel. “[O]nly recently, within the past three weeks,” did Leonard “discover
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=137952 - 2015-03-18
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
enforcement were reasonable.” Hughes, 233 Wis. 2d 280, ¶23. Furthermore, “[o]ur review of the exigent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=360239 - 2021-04-28
enforcement were reasonable.” Hughes, 233 Wis. 2d 280, ¶23. Furthermore, “[o]ur review of the exigent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=360239 - 2021-04-28