Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14841 - 14850 of 64566 for b's.

[PDF] State v. Marika W.
is not to be given preference. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.10(b)4. It is. See WIS. STAT. § 48.43(6) & WIS. STAT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5961 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
multiple “[b]reaches,” including improper billing, breach of presumed and implied consent, and medical
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=216681 - 2018-07-31

State v. Scott M. Doering
Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4. [1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6500 - 2005-03-31

Waushara County v. Clinton L. Duhm
to Wis. Stat. § 345.51 is that found in Wis. Stat. § 345.37(1)(b), whether the defendant “shows
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4529 - 2005-03-31

00-11 Amendment of SCR 10.06, 10.07, 10.08 relating to composition and quorum of State Bar Board of Governors Executive Committee, annual meetings of State Bar (Effective 03-07-01)
of the following: (a) 1. whether Whether the question is properly the subject of a referendum ;. (b) 2. whether
/sc/rulhear/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=1156 - 2005-03-31

Pauline Orsted v. Ervin Orsted
Wis.2d 491, 495, 548 N.W.2d 852, 853-54 (Ct. App. 1996); § 809.10(1)(b), Stats. More than three years
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12130 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
court for Dane County: Angela B. Bartell, Judge. Affirmed. Before Higginbotham, P.J
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36192 - 2009-04-15

State v. Adam J. Soltis
the administering of the test. A blood test is subject to par. (b). The person who submits to the test is permitted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7625 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
court to deviate from the presumption of equal division in divorce. See Wis. Stat. § 767.61(3)(b
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55968 - 2010-10-25

[PDF] State v. Jerald J. McDowell
substance with intent to deliver, as a subsequent offense, contrary to §§ 161.16(2)(b)1, 161.41(1m)(cm)1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10593 - 2017-09-20