Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 20171 - 20180 of 50071 for our.
Search results 20171 - 20180 of 50071 for our.
[PDF]
State v. Joseph M. Westcott
was not material, trial counsel’s lack of objection was not ineffective assistance. Also, in sentencing, our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12076 - 2017-09-21
was not material, trial counsel’s lack of objection was not ineffective assistance. Also, in sentencing, our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12076 - 2017-09-21
State v. Earl F. Beaver
. VanLaarhoven, 2001 WI App 275 at ¶5. Despite our de novo standard of review, we nonetheless value the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4143 - 2005-03-31
. VanLaarhoven, 2001 WI App 275 at ¶5. Despite our de novo standard of review, we nonetheless value the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4143 - 2005-03-31
State v. Kenneth L. Larson
This case is before us on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court vacated our prior decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9365 - 2005-03-31
This case is before us on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court vacated our prior decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9365 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
should have been suppressed. ¶9 Our review of a circuit court’s ruling on Villarreal’s motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=133337 - 2017-09-21
should have been suppressed. ¶9 Our review of a circuit court’s ruling on Villarreal’s motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=133337 - 2017-09-21
David Pender v. City of Appleton
is bereft of citation to case authority or the applicable standard for our review. We decline to develop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15119 - 2005-03-31
is bereft of citation to case authority or the applicable standard for our review. We decline to develop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15119 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
of the evidence to support the conviction or the circuit court’s exercise of its sentencing discretion. Our
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=999093 - 2025-08-20
of the evidence to support the conviction or the circuit court’s exercise of its sentencing discretion. Our
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=999093 - 2025-08-20
State v. Agripino Barbosa
court’s discretionary determination, subject to our review under the erroneous exercise of discretion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3715 - 2005-03-31
court’s discretionary determination, subject to our review under the erroneous exercise of discretion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3715 - 2005-03-31
State v. Vickie L. Shipler
) and 973.03(4). Statutory interpretation is a question of law, subject to our de novo review. Truttschel v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2747 - 2005-03-31
) and 973.03(4). Statutory interpretation is a question of law, subject to our de novo review. Truttschel v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2747 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶13 Our supreme court recently withdrew “language
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33924 - 2008-09-02
must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶13 Our supreme court recently withdrew “language
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33924 - 2008-09-02
[PDF]
State v. Kendric Jermaine Winters
improper closing argument. 1 We conclude that our decision rejecting Winters’s Riverside challenge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25833 - 2017-09-21
improper closing argument. 1 We conclude that our decision rejecting Winters’s Riverside challenge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25833 - 2017-09-21