Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12651 - 12660 of 58381 for speedy trial.
Search results 12651 - 12660 of 58381 for speedy trial.
John E. Taylor v. Cress Funeral Service, Inc.
attorney fees. Taylor claims the trial court erred in concluding that Cress did not violate Wisconsin’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4383 - 2005-03-31
attorney fees. Taylor claims the trial court erred in concluding that Cress did not violate Wisconsin’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4383 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Barron County v. Kathy S.
. and Eric S. She contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the Barron County
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15970 - 2017-09-21
. and Eric S. She contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the Barron County
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15970 - 2017-09-21
State v. Robert J. Defliger
motion for postconviction relief. DeFliger claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4277 - 2005-03-31
motion for postconviction relief. DeFliger claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4277 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Timothy J. Novak
of the trial court for the reasons discussed below. ¶2 Novak and his wife were charged with arson and three
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3095 - 2017-09-20
of the trial court for the reasons discussed below. ¶2 Novak and his wife were charged with arson and three
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3095 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority v. Robert W. Stanek
of the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA). The Staneks argue that the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3338 - 2017-09-19
of the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA). The Staneks argue that the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3338 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Irving G. Wenzel v. Washburn County
was appropriate. On cross appeal, the respondents contend that the trial court erroneously exercised its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8767 - 2017-09-19
was appropriate. On cross appeal, the respondents contend that the trial court erroneously exercised its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8767 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
motion.[1] The issues are whether the trial court imposed an unduly harsh sentence, and whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35637 - 2009-02-23
motion.[1] The issues are whether the trial court imposed an unduly harsh sentence, and whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35637 - 2009-02-23
State v. Elliott D. Ray
his jury trial, for first-degree reckless homicide, party to a crime, two counts of first-degree
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5074 - 2005-03-31
his jury trial, for first-degree reckless homicide, party to a crime, two counts of first-degree
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5074 - 2005-03-31
State v. Jeffrey J. Beardsley
different theories: (1) the trial court erred by admitting other acts evidence of a previous armed robbery
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10596 - 2005-03-31
different theories: (1) the trial court erred by admitting other acts evidence of a previous armed robbery
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10596 - 2005-03-31
State v. James C. Koepp
problems; (2) he received an improper sentence because of those mental health problems; and (3) the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11833 - 2005-03-31
problems; (2) he received an improper sentence because of those mental health problems; and (3) the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11833 - 2005-03-31