Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12671 - 12680 of 83455 for simple case search.
Search results 12671 - 12680 of 83455 for simple case search.
Jefferson County v. Jesse A. Marcelle
in this case is controlled by VanLaarhoven. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 343.305, Marcelle is deemed to have
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4053 - 2005-03-31
in this case is controlled by VanLaarhoven. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 343.305, Marcelle is deemed to have
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4053 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the briefs and record, we conclude at No. 2015AP1129-CR 2 conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=161636 - 2017-09-21
of the briefs and record, we conclude at No. 2015AP1129-CR 2 conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=161636 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Buren F. Sprague
extraction of a blood sample is a reasonable search by Fourth Amendment standards. See State v. Krause
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13277 - 2017-09-21
extraction of a blood sample is a reasonable search by Fourth Amendment standards. See State v. Krause
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13277 - 2017-09-21
State v. Corrine L. Brazee
Wisconsin courts have applied the doctrine in criminal cases, but they have rejected a formalistic
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4086 - 2005-03-31
Wisconsin courts have applied the doctrine in criminal cases, but they have rejected a formalistic
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4086 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
The facts of this case are not disputed. While patrolling one night, officer Nicholas Suminski noticed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35964 - 2014-09-15
The facts of this case are not disputed. While patrolling one night, officer Nicholas Suminski noticed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35964 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
under the particular facts and circumstances of the case.” Id., ¶20 (footnote omitted). “[A] prior
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30604 - 2014-09-15
under the particular facts and circumstances of the case.” Id., ¶20 (footnote omitted). “[A] prior
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30604 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to make a constitutionally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30864 - 2014-09-15
States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to make a constitutionally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30864 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
agree. We therefore reverse and remand. BACKGROUND ¶2 The facts of this case are not disputed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35964 - 2009-03-23
agree. We therefore reverse and remand. BACKGROUND ¶2 The facts of this case are not disputed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35964 - 2009-03-23
COURT OF APPEALS
without any factual support that the judge who presided over their case “has a history of denying jury
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=136485 - 2015-03-03
without any factual support that the judge who presided over their case “has a history of denying jury
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=136485 - 2015-03-03
[PDF]
NOTICE
.2d 37 (Ct. App. 1991). When reviewing findings of fact, we search the record for reasons
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31243 - 2014-09-15
.2d 37 (Ct. App. 1991). When reviewing findings of fact, we search the record for reasons
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31243 - 2014-09-15