Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1511 - 1520 of 69399 for as he.
Search results 1511 - 1520 of 69399 for as he.
COURT OF APPEALS
$5,986.00. ¶3 Krisik testified he did not receive any money from Huml and when he attempted to call
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35285 - 2009-01-20
$5,986.00. ¶3 Krisik testified he did not receive any money from Huml and when he attempted to call
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35285 - 2009-01-20
State v. Kurt A. Loewen
were not entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently because he did not understand that a mere
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8210 - 2005-03-31
were not entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently because he did not understand that a mere
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8210 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
conviction. He argues that his current OWI conviction should not have been treated as his third offense
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69382 - 2011-08-10
conviction. He argues that his current OWI conviction should not have been treated as his third offense
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69382 - 2011-08-10
[PDF]
NOTICE
concentration (PAC), fifth offense, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(b) (2007- 08).1 He contends the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35761 - 2014-09-15
concentration (PAC), fifth offense, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(b) (2007- 08).1 He contends the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35761 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
further proceedings to review the restitution that was ordered.” The court asked Volpendesto whether he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=116162 - 2014-07-08
further proceedings to review the restitution that was ordered.” The court asked Volpendesto whether he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=116162 - 2014-07-08
State v. Frank J. Steffes
to § 343.63(1)(a), Stats. He contends that even though he failed to request a refusal hearing under § 343.305
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14807 - 2005-03-31
to § 343.63(1)(a), Stats. He contends that even though he failed to request a refusal hearing under § 343.305
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14807 - 2005-03-31
State v. Kurt A. Loewen
were not entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently because he did not understand that a mere
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8209 - 2005-03-31
were not entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently because he did not understand that a mere
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8209 - 2005-03-31
State v. Levelt D. Musgraves
S. Sykes. Although Musgraves recounted that he was unhappy with his trial counsel for a number
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9121 - 2005-03-31
S. Sykes. Although Musgraves recounted that he was unhappy with his trial counsel for a number
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9121 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
Huml had with Krisik, Huml then owed Krisik $5,986.00. ¶3 Krisik testified he did not receive any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35285 - 2014-09-15
Huml had with Krisik, Huml then owed Krisik $5,986.00. ¶3 Krisik testified he did not receive any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35285 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
. § 346.63(1)(b) (2007-08).[1] He contends the trial court erroneously denied his motion to collaterally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35761 - 2009-03-10
. § 346.63(1)(b) (2007-08).[1] He contends the trial court erroneously denied his motion to collaterally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35761 - 2009-03-10