Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14041 - 14050 of 50100 for our.
Search results 14041 - 14050 of 50100 for our.
[PDF]
Citizens' Utility Board (CUB) v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
AND FERN ROWNEY, SANDY LYON AND RUSSEL DECKER, PETITIONERS, SAVE OUR UNIQUE LANDS (SOUL
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5457 - 2017-09-19
AND FERN ROWNEY, SANDY LYON AND RUSSEL DECKER, PETITIONERS, SAVE OUR UNIQUE LANDS (SOUL
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5457 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
report at our request. Jones did not file any 1 All
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=704322 - 2023-09-19
report at our request. Jones did not file any 1 All
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=704322 - 2023-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
, and this appeal followed. DISCUSSION ¶5 “We need finality in our litigation.” State v. Escalona-Naranjo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=89015 - 2012-11-25
, and this appeal followed. DISCUSSION ¶5 “We need finality in our litigation.” State v. Escalona-Naranjo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=89015 - 2012-11-25
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. State v. Greer (Greer I), No. 2017AP1396-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App Oct. 30, 2018). Our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1028958 - 2025-10-28
. State v. Greer (Greer I), No. 2017AP1396-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App Oct. 30, 2018). Our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1028958 - 2025-10-28
COURT OF APPEALS
is unambiguous. ¶16 Our holding in that respect is buttressed by the circuit court’s finding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=111223 - 2014-04-28
is unambiguous. ¶16 Our holding in that respect is buttressed by the circuit court’s finding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=111223 - 2014-04-28
[PDF]
Community Credit Plan, Inc. v. Frank M. Kett
expand our analysis beyond the statute’s plain language in order to determine the intent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12139 - 2017-09-21
expand our analysis beyond the statute’s plain language in order to determine the intent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12139 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. App. 1985). Our review of that trial court’s discretionary decision is deferential, in that we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=342955 - 2021-03-09
. App. 1985). Our review of that trial court’s discretionary decision is deferential, in that we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=342955 - 2021-03-09
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
). Although the parties at times refer to this statute as the “open records law,” we follow our supreme
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=771763 - 2024-03-07
). Although the parties at times refer to this statute as the “open records law,” we follow our supreme
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=771763 - 2024-03-07
COURT OF APPEALS
, there was no evidence at trial to substantiate these presuppositions. ¶18 Our review of the jury’s award
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=96733 - 2013-05-13
, there was no evidence at trial to substantiate these presuppositions. ¶18 Our review of the jury’s award
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=96733 - 2013-05-13
Milwaukee County v. Juneau County
clearly and unambiguously sets forth the legislative intent, it is our duty to apply that intent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5821 - 2005-03-31
clearly and unambiguously sets forth the legislative intent, it is our duty to apply that intent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5821 - 2005-03-31