Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 17081 - 17090 of 59281 for SMALL CLAIMS.
Search results 17081 - 17090 of 59281 for SMALL CLAIMS.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. ¶5 In 2002, Gressel filed a WIS. STAT. § 974.06 motion for plea withdrawal, claiming his pleas were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=93884 - 2014-09-15
. ¶5 In 2002, Gressel filed a WIS. STAT. § 974.06 motion for plea withdrawal, claiming his pleas were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=93884 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
. STAT. §§ 973.19 (2003-04); 809.30(2) (2003-04). Tillery appeals. ¶5 Tillery’s substantive claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=51218 - 2014-09-15
. STAT. §§ 973.19 (2003-04); 809.30(2) (2003-04). Tillery appeals. ¶5 Tillery’s substantive claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=51218 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
reject his claims and affirm the circuit court’s order. ¶2 Smith was convicted of delivery
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=76820 - 2012-01-23
reject his claims and affirm the circuit court’s order. ¶2 Smith was convicted of delivery
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=76820 - 2012-01-23
COURT OF APPEALS
. Stat. § 974.06 motion for plea withdrawal, claiming his pleas were not knowingly, intelligently
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93884 - 2013-03-11
. Stat. § 974.06 motion for plea withdrawal, claiming his pleas were not knowingly, intelligently
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93884 - 2013-03-11
COURT OF APPEALS
his Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion. Boose claims the circuit court erred when it summarily denied his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=48732 - 2010-04-05
his Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion. Boose claims the circuit court erred when it summarily denied his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=48732 - 2010-04-05
CA Blank Order
809.21 (2013-14).[1] As we agree that Artisan’s subrogation claim is barred by the statute
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140518 - 2015-04-28
809.21 (2013-14).[1] As we agree that Artisan’s subrogation claim is barred by the statute
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140518 - 2015-04-28
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
conclusion that the issues lacked arguable merit. We also addressed and rejected the claims Edmonson
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1011166 - 2025-09-16
conclusion that the issues lacked arguable merit. We also addressed and rejected the claims Edmonson
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1011166 - 2025-09-16
[PDF]
State v. Mark Anthony Solorio
postconviction motion. He raises one claim of error: that the trial court erroneously exercised its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18775 - 2017-09-21
postconviction motion. He raises one claim of error: that the trial court erroneously exercised its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18775 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
conclusion that the issues lacked arguable merit. We also addressed and rejected the claims Edmonson
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1011166 - 2025-09-16
conclusion that the issues lacked arguable merit. We also addressed and rejected the claims Edmonson
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1011166 - 2025-09-16
State v. Donald F. Sheffey
for postconviction relief. Sheffey argues that: (1) he was not allowed to present evidence in support of his claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24910 - 2006-04-26
for postconviction relief. Sheffey argues that: (1) he was not allowed to present evidence in support of his claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24910 - 2006-04-26