Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 13421 - 13430 of 73031 for we.
Search results 13421 - 13430 of 73031 for we.
COURT OF APPEALS
: the ministerial duty exception and the clear and compelling danger exception. We agree with the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=68667 - 2013-09-30
: the ministerial duty exception and the clear and compelling danger exception. We agree with the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=68667 - 2013-09-30
Melvin Kempf v. Michael D. Lilek
filed a motion for costs and attorney fees alleging the Kempfs’ appeal is frivolous. We determine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5055 - 2005-03-31
filed a motion for costs and attorney fees alleging the Kempfs’ appeal is frivolous. We determine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5055 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Nathaniel A. Lindell
court erred in concluding that he had not been denied effective assistance of counsel. Because we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16114 - 2017-09-21
court erred in concluding that he had not been denied effective assistance of counsel. Because we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16114 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
. The circuit court denied Bouc’s motion. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 On December 1, 2006, Bouc was charged
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58051 - 2010-12-21
. The circuit court denied Bouc’s motion. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 On December 1, 2006, Bouc was charged
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58051 - 2010-12-21
[PDF]
Melvin Kempf v. Michael D. Lilek
for costs and attorney fees alleging the Kempfs’ appeal is frivolous. We determine the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5055 - 2017-09-19
for costs and attorney fees alleging the Kempfs’ appeal is frivolous. We determine the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5055 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
denying his postconviction motion. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149336 - 2017-09-21
denying his postconviction motion. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149336 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
support. Based upon our review of the briefs and Record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=935915 - 2025-04-02
support. Based upon our review of the briefs and Record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=935915 - 2025-04-02
COURT OF APPEALS
ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. ¶2 Sturdevant pled no contest in 1994 to three counts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32475 - 2008-04-16
ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. ¶2 Sturdevant pled no contest in 1994 to three counts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32475 - 2008-04-16
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
support. Based upon our review of the briefs and Record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=935915 - 2025-04-02
support. Based upon our review of the briefs and Record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=935915 - 2025-04-02
State v. Brent L. Barber.
as mandated by Anders, we conclude that there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12118 - 2005-03-31
as mandated by Anders, we conclude that there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12118 - 2005-03-31