Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 19791 - 19800 of 38484 for t's.
Search results 19791 - 19800 of 38484 for t's.
COURT OF APPEALS
T. JUDGE, Judge. Affirmed. Before Hoover, P.J., Mangerson and Stark, JJ. ¶1 PER
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98825 - 2005-03-31
T. JUDGE, Judge. Affirmed. Before Hoover, P.J., Mangerson and Stark, JJ. ¶1 PER
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98825 - 2005-03-31
County of Lafayette v. Bradley G. Heins
the interference in the first place. … [T]he detention caused by the traffic stop must be temporary and last
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13562 - 2005-03-31
the interference in the first place. … [T]he detention caused by the traffic stop must be temporary and last
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13562 - 2005-03-31
State v. James B. Fogle
of a physical inability, nor a disease or physical disability to give the blood.... [T]here isn’t any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6295 - 2005-03-31
of a physical inability, nor a disease or physical disability to give the blood.... [T]here isn’t any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6295 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
expenses” and dismissing the contempt motion without a hearing. The clarifying order explained: [T]he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=111794 - 2014-05-07
expenses” and dismissing the contempt motion without a hearing. The clarifying order explained: [T]he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=111794 - 2014-05-07
COURT OF APPEALS
T. JUDGE, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 STARK, J.[1] Robert Hammersley, pro se, appeals an order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=109207 - 2014-03-17
T. JUDGE, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 STARK, J.[1] Robert Hammersley, pro se, appeals an order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=109207 - 2014-03-17
CA Blank Order
] We reject Gimino’s erroneous assertion that it is “an unprecedented procedure” for this court “[t]o
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=139836 - 2015-04-14
] We reject Gimino’s erroneous assertion that it is “an unprecedented procedure” for this court “[t]o
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=139836 - 2015-04-14
COURT OF APPEALS
of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joshua T. Howard, Defendant-Appellant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85771 - 2008-10-01
of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joshua T. Howard, Defendant-Appellant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85771 - 2008-10-01
State v. Andrew Cotton
court. FACTS ¶2 On April 3, 2000, City of Waukesha police officers Tim Ellis-Stigler and James T
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4019 - 2005-03-31
court. FACTS ¶2 On April 3, 2000, City of Waukesha police officers Tim Ellis-Stigler and James T
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4019 - 2005-03-31
State v. Catherine M. Parrilli
of alcohol.… [T]he determination of whether a defendant was the actual driver is not an issue, nor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17867 - 2005-03-31
of alcohol.… [T]he determination of whether a defendant was the actual driver is not an issue, nor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17867 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
about what the sentence would have been…. [T]here is just no way I was [g]oing to do a concurrent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=108402 - 2007-12-03
about what the sentence would have been…. [T]here is just no way I was [g]oing to do a concurrent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=108402 - 2007-12-03