Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 16911 - 16920 of 50107 for our.
Search results 16911 - 16920 of 50107 for our.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
3 We note that effective April 6, 2018, our legislature changed one of the elements
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=295085 - 2020-10-13
3 We note that effective April 6, 2018, our legislature changed one of the elements
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=295085 - 2020-10-13
COURT OF APPEALS
197. Sentencing decisions are afforded a presumption of reasonability consistent with our strong
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=66183 - 2011-06-22
197. Sentencing decisions are afforded a presumption of reasonability consistent with our strong
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=66183 - 2011-06-22
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
[does] not perform a Sullivan analysis ..., our review is de novo. State v. Lock, 2012 WI App 99
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=110427 - 2017-09-21
[does] not perform a Sullivan analysis ..., our review is de novo. State v. Lock, 2012 WI App 99
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=110427 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Wesley Rathburn v. Dallas
because they are not material to our ultimate determination of the issues raised on appeal. No. 02
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5304 - 2017-09-19
because they are not material to our ultimate determination of the issues raised on appeal. No. 02
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5304 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that follow. ¶6 WISCONSIN STAT. § 968.24 has been called “our codification of the Terry stop.” See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=187322 - 2017-09-21
that follow. ¶6 WISCONSIN STAT. § 968.24 has been called “our codification of the Terry stop.” See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=187322 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
or application of a statute to a set of facts a question of law is presented and our review is de novo. State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60150 - 2014-09-15
or application of a statute to a set of facts a question of law is presented and our review is de novo. State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60150 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. April J. Ingalls
of review. However, on appeal, our analytical framework does not exist in a vacuum. It must be based
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3865 - 2017-09-20
of review. However, on appeal, our analytical framework does not exist in a vacuum. It must be based
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3865 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
[2015-16].”1 Accordingly, we limit our review to the question of whether the court erred in denying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=231135 - 2019-05-23
[2015-16].”1 Accordingly, we limit our review to the question of whether the court erred in denying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=231135 - 2019-05-23
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
for any of the reasons under the statute is within the circuit court’s discretion, and on appeal our
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=214616 - 2018-06-19
for any of the reasons under the statute is within the circuit court’s discretion, and on appeal our
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=214616 - 2018-06-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
in circumstantial evidence cases, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact unless
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=359248 - 2021-04-22
in circumstantial evidence cases, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact unless
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=359248 - 2021-04-22