Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 16821 - 16830 of 50146 for our.
Search results 16821 - 16830 of 50146 for our.
COURT OF APPEALS
a statute, our purpose is to determine the legislature’s intent and give it effect. Id. We first examine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33879 - 2008-09-02
a statute, our purpose is to determine the legislature’s intent and give it effect. Id. We first examine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33879 - 2008-09-02
COURT OF APPEALS
As set forth in our prior decision resolving Fitzgerald’s pro se appeal from the circuit court order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104775 - 2013-11-25
As set forth in our prior decision resolving Fitzgerald’s pro se appeal from the circuit court order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104775 - 2013-11-25
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=133569 - 2017-09-21
. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=133569 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
(1980) (citation omitted). “It is our opinion that the five-day period set forth in [§] 968.15
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=632052 - 2023-03-15
(1980) (citation omitted). “It is our opinion that the five-day period set forth in [§] 968.15
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=632052 - 2023-03-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
with counsel that this issue lacks arguable merit. Our review of a sentence determination begins
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=235213 - 2019-02-14
with counsel that this issue lacks arguable merit. Our review of a sentence determination begins
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=235213 - 2019-02-14
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
Disqualifier for Domestic Violence.” The Department’s decision was based on our opinion in Evans v. DOJ
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=841714 - 2024-08-28
Disqualifier for Domestic Violence.” The Department’s decision was based on our opinion in Evans v. DOJ
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=841714 - 2024-08-28
[PDF]
NOTICE
for any facts. Therefore, we will confine our review to three issues: (1) whether WIS. STAT. § 974.06
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38453 - 2014-09-15
for any facts. Therefore, we will confine our review to three issues: (1) whether WIS. STAT. § 974.06
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38453 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
WI APP 58
to the exclusionary rule. Id. at 2423-24. No. 2013AP1910-CR 5 ¶7 Our supreme court adopted this good
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=110749 - 2017-09-21
to the exclusionary rule. Id. at 2423-24. No. 2013AP1910-CR 5 ¶7 Our supreme court adopted this good
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=110749 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that he would receive concurrent sentences. Our review of the record—including the plea questionnaire
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=422120 - 2021-09-08
that he would receive concurrent sentences. Our review of the record—including the plea questionnaire
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=422120 - 2021-09-08
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the circuit court followed the appropriate procedures in accepting Meindel’s pleas. Our review
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=143331 - 2017-09-21
the circuit court followed the appropriate procedures in accepting Meindel’s pleas. Our review
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=143331 - 2017-09-21