Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 19701 - 19710 of 68276 for did.

[PDF] State v. Ronald A. Keith, Sr.
and be committed under ch. 980, STATS. Because he did not raise the first issue to No. 97-0817-CR 2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12246 - 2017-09-21

State v. Chadrick B. Thompson
. At the sentencing hearing, Thompson did not object to the court's consideration of the 1994 PSI. In fact, he argued
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11013 - 2005-03-31

State v. Chadrick B. Thompson
. At the sentencing hearing, Thompson did not object to the court's consideration of the 1994 PSI. In fact, he argued
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11015 - 2005-03-31

Columbia Savings and Loan Association v. Rayford N. Drake
argues that the trial court did not award him sufficient attorney fees and costs under § 814.025, Stats
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13334 - 2005-03-31

Douglas County v. Florence S.
104 (1985), did not take place until almost sixteen months later, on September 29 and October 3, 1995
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10598 - 2005-03-31

Audrey Ann (Bricko) Yenter v. Andrew Kenneth Bricko
court's finding that Bricko did not establish a substantial change in circumstances. At the time Bricko
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9026 - 2005-03-31

State v. James E. Jones
.2d 483, 484 (Ct. App. 1989). He did not do so. He did bring a postconviction motion to vacate his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11206 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
to instruct the jury on an essential element of the crime because the court did not define “sexual contact
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34102 - 2008-09-24

[PDF] Columbia Savings and Loan Association v. Rayford N. Drake
and costs. Drake argues that the trial court did not award him sufficient attorney fees and costs under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13334 - 2017-09-21

State v. Michael Mageland
to dismiss the charge on the grounds that the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop Mageland’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14537 - 2005-03-31