Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15941 - 15950 of 73699 for we.
Search results 15941 - 15950 of 73699 for we.
State v. Mark D. O'Kray
to counsel at sentencing. We deem dispositive the trial court’s denial of O’Kray’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12175 - 2005-03-31
to counsel at sentencing. We deem dispositive the trial court’s denial of O’Kray’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12175 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
or the Challenge Incarceration Program. We affirm. ¶2 Soles pled guilty to theft by false representation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104150 - 2013-11-12
or the Challenge Incarceration Program. We affirm. ¶2 Soles pled guilty to theft by false representation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104150 - 2013-11-12
[PDF]
Anthony Kowalski v. County of Milwaukee Employees' Retirement System Annuity and Pension Board
determination and because the ordinance does not violate the equal protection clause, we affirm. I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4512 - 2017-09-19
determination and because the ordinance does not violate the equal protection clause, we affirm. I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4512 - 2017-09-19
State v. James Gulley
received ineffective assistance of trial, postconviction, and appellate counsel. Because we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3792 - 2005-03-31
received ineffective assistance of trial, postconviction, and appellate counsel. Because we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3792 - 2005-03-31
State v. James Gulley
received ineffective assistance of trial, postconviction, and appellate counsel. Because we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3793 - 2005-03-31
received ineffective assistance of trial, postconviction, and appellate counsel. Because we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3793 - 2005-03-31
State v. Timothy J. Meddaugh
conducting the blood analysis. We conclude that, under Wisconsin’s Implied Consent Law, Meddaugh consented
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3714 - 2005-03-31
conducting the blood analysis. We conclude that, under Wisconsin’s Implied Consent Law, Meddaugh consented
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3714 - 2005-03-31
State v. George B. Gleason
that Gleason made a “true threat”; (2) whether we should grant Gleason a new trial in the interest of justice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5236 - 2005-03-31
that Gleason made a “true threat”; (2) whether we should grant Gleason a new trial in the interest of justice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5236 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
on the merits of the complaint or, alternatively, dismissal with prejudice. We affirm. ¶2 In February
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=138244 - 2015-05-19
on the merits of the complaint or, alternatively, dismissal with prejudice. We affirm. ¶2 In February
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=138244 - 2015-05-19
State v. Daniel Anderson
was multiplicitous. We agree and reverse the conviction as to one count of bail jumping and remand for resentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10226 - 2011-11-28
was multiplicitous. We agree and reverse the conviction as to one count of bail jumping and remand for resentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10226 - 2011-11-28
[PDF]
Walter H. Osswald v. Jack Osswald
rather than a quitclaim deed. We reject Jack’s argument and affirm the judgment. Background ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18867 - 2017-09-21
rather than a quitclaim deed. We reject Jack’s argument and affirm the judgment. Background ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18867 - 2017-09-21