Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 16781 - 16790 of 49821 for our.

[PDF] State v. Tyler J. Kingsfield
trial is that, where testimony is conflicting, we do not substitute our judgment for the jury’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3294 - 2017-09-19

State v. Eureka Scruggs
again due to her weakened and impaired state. Our review of the record reveals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11998 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
our holding as resting on a conclusion that a large quantity of marijuana “could not be easily
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=67144 - 2011-07-05

COURT OF APPEALS
on the ambiguity and we will not abandon our neutrality to develop arguments. See M.C.I., Inc. v. Elbin, 146 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31284 - 2007-12-26

[PDF] CA Blank Order
to a challenge to the circuit court’s exercise of its sentencing discretion. Our review of a sentence
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1030890 - 2025-10-30

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Id., ¶3. Upon our independent review of the record, as mandated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=165558 - 2017-09-21

State v. Dennis Jones
result. Third, our holding creates a “bright-line” test that is easy to follow
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12322 - 2005-03-31

David Burch v. Village of Hammond
OF REVIEW ¶5 In an action for certiorari review, our review is the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5947 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
within the circuit court’s discretion, and our review is limited to considering whether discretion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44876 - 2009-12-21

State v. Bruce E. Caver
is a “possibility sufficient to undermine our confidence in the conviction.” State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58, ¶50
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6880 - 2005-03-31