Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12961 - 12970 of 73784 for we.

[PDF] State v. William A. Spring
determined that the use and content of the form did not violate the implied consent law. We uphold
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10157 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
that the tenancy agreement was unenforceable and granted the eviction. We conclude that the agreement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=196923 - 2017-09-27

Michael Wendt v. John H. Blazek
property, includes the right to maintain and use a pier at the water’s edge of the easement.[1] We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3007 - 2005-03-31

Nancy L. DeWitt v. Edward L. Jones
through the mixing of nonmarital and marital property. We conclude the trial court correctly determined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11509 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] National Presto Industries, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue
), STATS., within two years of a field audit that resulted in a refund. Because we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12368 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Paradise Place Associates Limited Partnership v. City of West Bend
(the board). We affirm. FACTS Paradise is the owner of a subsidized apartment complex developed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9633 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
. For the reasons discussed below, we reject Harris’s arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 On the evening
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=608438 - 2023-01-10

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
reasons, we affirm. 1 These appeals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=269872 - 2020-07-15

[PDF] State v. Ryan A. Jacques
conditions on his extended supervision. We affirm in part; reverse in part and remand with directions. I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4591 - 2017-09-19

State v. Peter Jay Bartram
in “actual prosecutorial vindictiveness,” and we agree that the record before the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15790 - 2005-03-31