Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1371 - 1380 of 34338 for dismissed.

[PDF] Timothy J. Lipke v. Tri-County Area School Board
., and Roggensack, J. DYKMAN, P.J. Timothy Lipke appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint against
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12594 - 2017-09-21

Timothy J. Lipke v. Tri-County Area School Board
. DYKMAN, P.J. Timothy Lipke appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint against Tri-County Area
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12318 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
is entitled to resentencing because dismissed counts were used as “read-ins” at sentencing. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32995 - 2008-06-17

[PDF] NOTICE
prejudicial testimony regarding two charges that were dismissed on day two of the trial. We reject Davis’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31127 - 2014-09-15

Marshfield Machine Corporation v. Bernard Martin
and Marshfield Machine, Inc. appeal the circuit court’s dismissal of their suit against Bernard Martin, Brian
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2395 - 2005-03-31

Timothy J. Lipke v. Tri-County Area School Board
. DYKMAN, P.J. Timothy Lipke appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint against Tri-County Area
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12594 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Timothy J. Lipke v. Tri-County Area School Board
., and Roggensack, J. DYKMAN, P.J. Timothy Lipke appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint against
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12318 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] NOTICE
dismissed counts were used as “read- ins” at sentencing. We affirm that portion of the order denying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32995 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Marshfield Machine Corporation v. Bernard Martin
ROGGENSACK, J. David Egger and Marshfield Machine, Inc. appeal the circuit court’s dismissal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2395 - 2017-09-19

Jim Smith v. Tracy Williams
] The circuit court dismissed Smith’s claims because it concluded that under § 66.05(3) Smith’s sole remedy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3393 - 2005-03-31