Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14541 - 14550 of 50071 for our.
Search results 14541 - 14550 of 50071 for our.
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
. Our review of a sentence determination begins with a “presumption that the [circuit] court acted
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=95632 - 2014-09-15
. Our review of a sentence determination begins with a “presumption that the [circuit] court acted
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=95632 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
Wis. 2d 594, 712 N.W.2d 76. Our review of the record confirms that the trial court thoroughly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=718645 - 2023-10-23
Wis. 2d 594, 712 N.W.2d 76. Our review of the record confirms that the trial court thoroughly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=718645 - 2023-10-23
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
trial. Cory contends that the trial court erred in multiple respects and was biased. Based upon our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1015742 - 2025-10-01
trial. Cory contends that the trial court erred in multiple respects and was biased. Based upon our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1015742 - 2025-10-01
COURT OF APPEALS
. Our review of the hearing transcript indicates that the prior inconsistent statements Morales-Munoz
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=142981 - 2015-06-10
. Our review of the hearing transcript indicates that the prior inconsistent statements Morales-Munoz
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=142981 - 2015-06-10
CA Blank Order
arguable merit. Our review of a sentencing determination begins with a “presumption that the [circuit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=116143 - 2014-06-30
arguable merit. Our review of a sentencing determination begins with a “presumption that the [circuit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=116143 - 2014-06-30
COURT OF APPEALS
failed to address the sufficiency of the evidence. ¶8 Our review on certiorari is limited to four
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=63156 - 2011-04-25
failed to address the sufficiency of the evidence. ¶8 Our review on certiorari is limited to four
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=63156 - 2011-04-25
State v. Allan P. Nelson
for our de novo review. Rochelt, 165 Wis.2d at 379, 477 N.W.2d at 661. We conclude that the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10219 - 2005-03-31
for our de novo review. Rochelt, 165 Wis.2d at 379, 477 N.W.2d at 661. We conclude that the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10219 - 2005-03-31
State v. William Gunderson
to be physically present in the courtroom. ¶11 Nevertheless, that does not end our inquiry because violation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4983 - 2005-03-31
to be physically present in the courtroom. ¶11 Nevertheless, that does not end our inquiry because violation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4983 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Tonnie D. Armstrong
contends that our opinion in this case contravened prior Wisconsin precedent without addressing
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17236 - 2017-09-21
contends that our opinion in this case contravened prior Wisconsin precedent without addressing
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17236 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. After our independent
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=617807 - 2023-02-07
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. After our independent
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=617807 - 2023-02-07