Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12821 - 12830 of 50107 for our.
Search results 12821 - 12830 of 50107 for our.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the jury as to the element of threatened use of imminent force. Based upon our review of the briefs
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=113106 - 2017-09-21
the jury as to the element of threatened use of imminent force. Based upon our review of the briefs
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=113106 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
RULE 809.21. After our independent review of the record, we conclude there is no arguable merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=257467 - 2020-04-16
RULE 809.21. After our independent review of the record, we conclude there is no arguable merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=257467 - 2020-04-16
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the circuit court construed as a motion under WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2023-24).1 Based upon our review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=989750 - 2025-07-29
the circuit court construed as a motion under WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2023-24).1 Based upon our review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=989750 - 2025-07-29
COURT OF APPEALS
of costs on appeal. The court awarded $3567.35 in costs against Morters. The supreme court reversed our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35259 - 2009-01-20
of costs on appeal. The court awarded $3567.35 in costs against Morters. The supreme court reversed our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35259 - 2009-01-20
COURT OF APPEALS
Amendment claim because he failed to object during the trial. Id., ¶23. On review, our supreme court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=47128 - 2010-02-16
Amendment claim because he failed to object during the trial. Id., ¶23. On review, our supreme court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=47128 - 2010-02-16
Joseph Ray Halsted v. Society Insurance Company
that distinction from our examination of Rudig’s deposition testimony. At the deposition, counsel repeatedly asked
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4379 - 2005-03-31
that distinction from our examination of Rudig’s deposition testimony. At the deposition, counsel repeatedly asked
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4379 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
, for failing to seek a plea withdrawal at the time of sentencing. Based upon our review of the briefs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=925282 - 2025-03-11
, for failing to seek a plea withdrawal at the time of sentencing. Based upon our review of the briefs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=925282 - 2025-03-11
COURT OF APPEALS
the testimony of the other witnesses. Given our highly deferential review of the municipal court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50828 - 2010-06-09
the testimony of the other witnesses. Given our highly deferential review of the municipal court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50828 - 2010-06-09
CA Blank Order
and whether the sentence was the result of an erroneous exercise of discretion. Our review of the record
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=110531 - 2014-04-22
and whether the sentence was the result of an erroneous exercise of discretion. Our review of the record
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=110531 - 2014-04-22
[PDF]
State v. Talib Amin Akbar
summarily vacated our decision and remanded for further consideration in this court in light of Prihoda
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2311 - 2017-09-19
summarily vacated our decision and remanded for further consideration in this court in light of Prihoda
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2311 - 2017-09-19