Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12491 - 12500 of 49819 for our.
Search results 12491 - 12500 of 49819 for our.
[PDF]
State v. Jerry Lee Cox
, 76 Wis.2d 277, 282, 251 N.W.2d 65, 67-68 (1977). Our review of the sentencing transcript reveals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13799 - 2014-09-15
, 76 Wis.2d 277, 282, 251 N.W.2d 65, 67-68 (1977). Our review of the sentencing transcript reveals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13799 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
. This is a question of statutory interpretation and therefore subject to our independent review. See State v. Long
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46061 - 2010-01-19
. This is a question of statutory interpretation and therefore subject to our independent review. See State v. Long
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46061 - 2010-01-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case No. 2018AP2123-CR
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=249636 - 2019-11-06
our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case No. 2018AP2123-CR
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=249636 - 2019-11-06
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
2016AP1650-CRNM 2 a response to the no-merit report and has not responded. Upon our independent
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=195461 - 2017-09-21
2016AP1650-CRNM 2 a response to the no-merit report and has not responded. Upon our independent
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=195461 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Romaine A. Langham
of the material statute as applied to facts that no one disputes. Thus, our review is de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25668 - 2017-09-21
of the material statute as applied to facts that no one disputes. Thus, our review is de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25668 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
with counsel that a challenge to Smith’s sentence would lack arguable merit. Our review of a sentence
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=91690 - 2014-09-15
with counsel that a challenge to Smith’s sentence would lack arguable merit. Our review of a sentence
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=91690 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
contends that she is entitled to a new trial. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=826276 - 2024-07-17
contends that she is entitled to a new trial. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=826276 - 2024-07-17
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
also lack arguable merit. Our review of a sentence determination begins with a “presumption
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=95127 - 2014-09-15
also lack arguable merit. Our review of a sentence determination begins with a “presumption
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=95127 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
enhancements. Williams responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=100156 - 2017-09-21
enhancements. Williams responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=100156 - 2017-09-21
State v. William H. Roberts
by exercising our authority under Wis. Stat. § 752.35 (1999-2000)[1] because the jury was distracted from
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4091 - 2005-03-31
by exercising our authority under Wis. Stat. § 752.35 (1999-2000)[1] because the jury was distracted from
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4091 - 2005-03-31