Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 13461 - 13470 of 72758 for we.
Search results 13461 - 13470 of 72758 for we.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
as a parent. We reject Jacob’s arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Jacob and Rita were married
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=749464 - 2024-01-09
as a parent. We reject Jacob’s arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Jacob and Rita were married
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=749464 - 2024-01-09
State v. Ricky D. Loret
to prove he was within ninety days of release from his sentence. We reject both claims and therefore
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14995 - 2005-03-31
to prove he was within ninety days of release from his sentence. We reject both claims and therefore
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14995 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
presenting its case. We agree. The circuit court’s ruling—that Hudson did not knowingly, intelligently
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=564329 - 2022-09-09
presenting its case. We agree. The circuit court’s ruling—that Hudson did not knowingly, intelligently
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=564329 - 2022-09-09
[PDF]
State v. Carl R. Kramer
prosecution: that the prosecution had a discriminatory effect. We disagree. Because the evidence
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17554 - 2017-09-21
prosecution: that the prosecution had a discriminatory effect. We disagree. Because the evidence
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17554 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI 39
. Attorney publicly reprimanded. ¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report and recommendation
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36636 - 2014-09-15
. Attorney publicly reprimanded. ¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report and recommendation
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36636 - 2014-09-15
Victoria Jocius v. Mark Jocius
hearing. We agree with Mark that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority in making a prospective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11475 - 2005-03-31
hearing. We agree with Mark that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority in making a prospective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11475 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Paul Venema
, according to Venema, he never improperly wore “two hats.” We reject this argument because it relies
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4386 - 2017-09-19
, according to Venema, he never improperly wore “two hats.” We reject this argument because it relies
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4386 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of the statements that he made during the questioning must be suppressed. We disagree, and we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=547708 - 2022-07-26
of the statements that he made during the questioning must be suppressed. We disagree, and we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=547708 - 2022-07-26
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
identification of Petty by the seller of the gun. We address and reject each of Petty’s arguments below
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=166125 - 2017-09-21
identification of Petty by the seller of the gun. We address and reject each of Petty’s arguments below
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=166125 - 2017-09-21
Stockbridge School District v.
. Because we conclude that § 117.12(1) allows for the detachment of such "island" parcels, we affirm
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16924 - 2005-03-31
. Because we conclude that § 117.12(1) allows for the detachment of such "island" parcels, we affirm
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16924 - 2005-03-31