Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1571 - 1580 of 4807 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Pintu Baja Double Batang Batang Sumenep.
Search results 1571 - 1580 of 4807 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Pintu Baja Double Batang Batang Sumenep.
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN
addressed Wis. Stat. § 961.45 (2007-08),[1] providing for double jeopardy protection against successive
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36810 - 2009-07-28
addressed Wis. Stat. § 961.45 (2007-08),[1] providing for double jeopardy protection against successive
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36810 - 2009-07-28
[PDF]
Shirley A. Smedema v. Milwaukee Guardian Insurance Company
and double costs under RULE 807.01, and ordinary costs under RULES 814.01 & 814.04, STATS. No. 96
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10562 - 2017-09-20
and double costs under RULE 807.01, and ordinary costs under RULES 814.01 & 814.04, STATS. No. 96
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10562 - 2017-09-20
Shirley A. Smedema v. Milwaukee Guardian Insurance Company
settlement for $165,000, she is entitled to pre-judgment interest and double costs under Rule 807.01
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10562 - 2005-03-31
settlement for $165,000, she is entitled to pre-judgment interest and double costs under Rule 807.01
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10562 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
are impermissible because they violate the double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitutions.” Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=410383 - 2021-08-17
are impermissible because they violate the double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitutions.” Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=410383 - 2021-08-17
COURT OF APPEALS
to support the verdict; and (8) Jackson’s prosecution violated his right to be free from double jeopardy. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69079 - 2011-08-03
to support the verdict; and (8) Jackson’s prosecution violated his right to be free from double jeopardy. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69079 - 2011-08-03
[PDF]
WI APP 100
providing for double jeopardy protection against successive prosecutions by dual sovereignties
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36810 - 2014-09-15
providing for double jeopardy protection against successive prosecutions by dual sovereignties
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36810 - 2014-09-15
Julie L. Weber v. Angelene White
judgment in the amount of $36,278.50 and awarded the Webers double costs and interest pursuant to Wis. Stat
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6182 - 2005-03-31
judgment in the amount of $36,278.50 and awarded the Webers double costs and interest pursuant to Wis. Stat
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6182 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Charles R. C.
Charles a fair trial; (4) his fifteen-year sentence is excessive and constitutes double jeopardy because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6975 - 2017-09-20
Charles a fair trial; (4) his fifteen-year sentence is excessive and constitutes double jeopardy because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6975 - 2017-09-20
Mark Lattimore v. Caldon Rushing
to pay him double damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys fees for violating an administrative rule
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24572 - 2006-03-22
to pay him double damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys fees for violating an administrative rule
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24572 - 2006-03-22
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
a final judgment against him of $19,445 in compensatory damages, double No. 2025AP1734 2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1145648 - 2026-07-15
a final judgment against him of $19,445 in compensatory damages, double No. 2025AP1734 2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1145648 - 2026-07-15