Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 19531 - 19540 of 91567 for 1.

COURT OF APPEALS
. Before Neubauer, P.J., Reilly and Gundrum, JJ. ¶1 PER CURIAM. The trial court determined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=125234 - 2014-10-28

State v. Wayne A. Sutton
Court for its review and determination. ISSUE Whether Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(a) (2003-04),[1] which
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21484 - 2006-02-21

H&H Assad, LLC v. City of Milwaukee
. APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: Jeffrey A. Kremers, Judge.[1] Reversed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6085 - 2005-03-31

Robert Perry v. Foremost Farms USA Cooperative
. Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Fine and Schudson, JJ. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Robert Perry
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15772 - 2005-03-31

State v. John A. Mahoney
. ¶1 ROGGENSACK, J.[1] John A. Mahoney appeals his conviction for operating a motor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3009 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 27, 2007 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court o...
. Affirmed. Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Fine and Curley, JJ. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Larry D
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28566 - 2007-03-26

Wi App 127 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2014AP6 Complete Title of...
. MICHAEL WILK, Judge. Affirmed. Before Neubauer, P.J., Reilly and Gundrum, JJ. ¶1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=129267 - 2014-12-18

[PDF] Oak Hill Development Corporation v. Board of Review for the City of Oak Creek
determination because: (1) the Development Method of assessment, which was used by the assessor to justify his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12671 - 2017-09-21

State v. Matthew Edwin Voigt
., and Peterson, J. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Matthew Voigt appeals a judgment of conviction for four counts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19827 - 2005-10-03

[PDF] State v. Marquis D. Rosenburg
. No. 95-1760-CR 1 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17030 - 2017-09-21