Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 20831 - 20840 of 58492 for speedy trial.

State v. Carl R. Lippstock
the motions. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE Lippstock brought a motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10951 - 2005-03-31

Village of Tigerton v. Donald Minniecheske
(hereinafter “Minniecheske”) appeal a trial court order that denied their § 806.07, Stats., motion to reopen
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13474 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Peter N. Peterson v. YMCA of Metropolitan Madison, Inc.
. The trial court concluded there was no evidence of negligence, noting that Peterson had given the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14420 - 2014-09-15

State v. Terrence D. Ross
), Stats. In exchange for the plea, the prosecution moved to dismiss a repeater allegation. The trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13024 - 2005-03-31

State v. James A. Kohlwey
therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. This proceeding involved seven consolidated prosecutions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12020 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Deon McGraw
, having pleaded no contest to the charge. The trial court sentenced McGraw to a fifteen-year prison
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11622 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] State v. Randy Schramke
was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to object and move to strike
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8750 - 2017-09-19

Realty World-First Security Group, Inc. v. Wagner & Hopkins, Inc.
a separate third-party action against Engum and sought consolidation of the two actions. The trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8093 - 2005-03-31

State v. Tanya M. Luchinski
disposition. ¶3 The State asked the trial court to withhold sentence and place Luchinski
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15637 - 2005-03-31

State v. Claude A. Gast
.[1] The trial court denied the motion on both procedural and substantive grounds. Because we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7082 - 2005-03-31