Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12491 - 12500 of 83771 for simple case search/1000.
Search results 12491 - 12500 of 83771 for simple case search/1000.
State v. Darwin J. Pamanet
affirmed. The facts of the case are undisputed. At approximately 7:20 a.m
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13605 - 2005-03-31
affirmed. The facts of the case are undisputed. At approximately 7:20 a.m
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13605 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
officers were searching for McKenzie. When asked, Sarah claimed to have no idea who had just fled
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=993099 - 2025-08-05
officers were searching for McKenzie. When asked, Sarah claimed to have no idea who had just fled
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=993099 - 2025-08-05
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
will independently search the record for reasons supporting the circuit court’s exercise of discretion). ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=174522 - 2017-09-21
will independently search the record for reasons supporting the circuit court’s exercise of discretion). ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=174522 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and his passenger were then placed in handcuffs. Based on the syringe, the officers decided to search
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=473753 - 2022-01-19
and his passenger were then placed in handcuffs. Based on the syringe, the officers decided to search
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=473753 - 2022-01-19
State v. Sheila K. LaFortune
in this case. In addition, the court concluded that LaFortune’s request to wait on the draw was unreasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6999 - 2005-03-31
in this case. In addition, the court concluded that LaFortune’s request to wait on the draw was unreasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6999 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21 (2011-12).[1
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=108055 - 2014-02-10
at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21 (2011-12).[1
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=108055 - 2014-02-10
Village of Pleasant Prairie v. Maureen M. McCarragher
and had thus violated her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. ¶3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5989 - 2005-03-31
and had thus violated her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. ¶3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5989 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference No. 2012AP2261-CR 2 that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=108055 - 2017-09-21
of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference No. 2012AP2261-CR 2 that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=108055 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
WIS. STAT. § 102.23(6). Our role on appeal No. 2014AP1382 4 is to search the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=143554 - 2017-09-21
WIS. STAT. § 102.23(6). Our role on appeal No. 2014AP1382 4 is to search the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=143554 - 2017-09-21
State v. Carlos Z.T.
.[4] In the instant case, the parties compare Carlos’s circumstances to those
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14628 - 2005-03-31
.[4] In the instant case, the parties compare Carlos’s circumstances to those
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14628 - 2005-03-31