Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 20641 - 20650 of 63789 for records/1000.
Search results 20641 - 20650 of 63789 for records/1000.
State v. Larry A. Tiepelman
review of the record, we conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5240 - 2005-03-31
review of the record, we conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5240 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and unsupported by the record. Specifically, he contends that the trial court failed to explain why his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=410240 - 2021-08-17
and unsupported by the record. Specifically, he contends that the trial court failed to explain why his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=410240 - 2021-08-17
State v. Kelly J. Kloss
the later blood sample obtained without Kloss’s consent. Thus, the evidentiary record is devoid of any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15248 - 2005-03-31
the later blood sample obtained without Kloss’s consent. Thus, the evidentiary record is devoid of any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15248 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
review of the record, we conclude no issues would have arguable merit for appeal. We summarily affirm
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=150613 - 2017-09-21
review of the record, we conclude no issues would have arguable merit for appeal. We summarily affirm
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=150613 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
] In rejecting the motion, the circuit court noted that the case record was still with this court following
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82399 - 2012-05-14
] In rejecting the motion, the circuit court noted that the case record was still with this court following
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82399 - 2012-05-14
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
jurisdiction. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1073006 - 2026-02-04
jurisdiction. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1073006 - 2026-02-04
State v. Antroy T. McGee
allegations, or when the record conclusively demonstrates that he is not entitled to relief. Nelson v. State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26534 - 2006-09-20
allegations, or when the record conclusively demonstrates that he is not entitled to relief. Nelson v. State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26534 - 2006-09-20
COURT OF APPEALS
as a prior inconsistent statement or a recorded recollection and under the residual hearsay rule. Defense
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69406 - 2011-08-08
as a prior inconsistent statement or a recorded recollection and under the residual hearsay rule. Defense
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69406 - 2011-08-08
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the record, we conclude there are no issues with arguable merit for appeal. We summarily affirm. See WIS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1071608 - 2026-02-04
of the record, we conclude there are no issues with arguable merit for appeal. We summarily affirm. See WIS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1071608 - 2026-02-04
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
jurisdiction. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1073006 - 2026-02-04
jurisdiction. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1073006 - 2026-02-04