Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 19851 - 19860 of 92204 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Desain Pintu Rumah 1 Pintu Tanjungsari Sumedang.

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

State v. Ramiro Villareal
in violation of § 940.02(1), Stats.; one count of aggravated battery in violation of § 940.19(2), Stats., 1991
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8849 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
and an order of the circuit court for Wood County: GREGORY J. POTTER, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 SHERMAN, J. 1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=230719 - 2019-01-29

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: MICHAEL J. HANRAHAN, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 BRASH
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=244703 - 2019-08-06

[PDF] Robert Plevin v. Department of Transportation
. BRENNAN, Judge. Affirmed. Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Fine and Schudson, JJ. ¶1 WEDEMEYER, P.J
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5959 - 2017-09-19

[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

[PDF] Frontsheet
. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HUDEC OPINION FILED: July 1, 2014 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=115776 - 2017-09-21

State v. Richard A. Hoeft
: JAMES C. BABLEr, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 PETERSON, J.[1] Richard Hoeft appeals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19759 - 2005-09-26

COURT OF APPEALS
: chad g. kerkman, Judge. Affirmed. Before Neubauer, P.J., Reilly and Gundrum, JJ. ¶1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143085 - 2015-06-16

[PDF] George M. DeBruin v. Town of Ashippun Board of Review
assessments.1 DeBruin’s calculations yielded a value of $6,488 for the land and $51,367
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11776 - 2017-09-20