Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 18271 - 18280 of 34596 for in n.
Search results 18271 - 18280 of 34596 for in n.
State v. Michael J. Burnett
. See State v. Byrge, 225 Wis. 2d 702, 717-18, n.7, 594 N.W.2d 388 (Ct. App. 1999) (“holdings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6159 - 2005-03-31
. See State v. Byrge, 225 Wis. 2d 702, 717-18, n.7, 594 N.W.2d 388 (Ct. App. 1999) (“holdings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6159 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
in the converse situation.” Id., ¶42 and n.7. ¶10 Damon contends the third requirement was not met here
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44495 - 2009-12-09
in the converse situation.” Id., ¶42 and n.7. ¶10 Damon contends the third requirement was not met here
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44495 - 2009-12-09
State v. Sheryl D. Stuckey
op. at 8 n. 8 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 1997). We continue to believe, as we also noted in Smith
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12850 - 2005-03-31
op. at 8 n. 8 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 1997). We continue to believe, as we also noted in Smith
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12850 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Barry L. Ball
. STAT. § 973.20. In State v. Schmaling, 198 Wis. 2d 756, 761 n.3, 543 N.W.2d 555 (Ct. App. 1995
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2795 - 2017-09-19
. STAT. § 973.20. In State v. Schmaling, 198 Wis. 2d 756, 761 n.3, 543 N.W.2d 555 (Ct. App. 1995
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2795 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
are not necessarily inconsistent with each other.” The court also explained its public policy reasoning: [O]n
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=75108 - 2014-09-15
are not necessarily inconsistent with each other.” The court also explained its public policy reasoning: [O]n
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=75108 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Frankie Wardell Simmons
or postconviction motion. “[C]oram nobis clearly is not a substitute for appeal.” [Darnell, 716 F.2d] at 481 n.5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4039 - 2017-09-20
or postconviction motion. “[C]oram nobis clearly is not a substitute for appeal.” [Darnell, 716 F.2d] at 481 n.5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4039 - 2017-09-20
CA Blank Order
Wis. 2d 241, 249-51& n.6, 471 N.W.2d 599 (Ct. App. 1991). There is no indication of any such defect
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121572 - 2014-09-16
Wis. 2d 241, 249-51& n.6, 471 N.W.2d 599 (Ct. App. 1991). There is no indication of any such defect
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121572 - 2014-09-16
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
n.4, 314 Wis. 2d 630, 762 N.W.2d 393. The distinction is immaterial for purposes of this appeal
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=612442 - 2023-01-25
n.4, 314 Wis. 2d 630, 762 N.W.2d 393. The distinction is immaterial for purposes of this appeal
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=612442 - 2023-01-25
[PDF]
NOTICE
At the plea hearing, the State acknowledged “[i]n further investigation, we find that Mr. Jones himself
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28782 - 2014-09-15
At the plea hearing, the State acknowledged “[i]n further investigation, we find that Mr. Jones himself
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28782 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
, and the need to protect the public. See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶¶39-46 & n.11, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=433199 - 2021-09-29
, and the need to protect the public. See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶¶39-46 & n.11, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=433199 - 2021-09-29