Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2111 - 2120 of 58267 for speedy trial.
Search results 2111 - 2120 of 58267 for speedy trial.
State v. Raheim Cason
and 940.23(1)(a) (1999‑2000).[1] Cason also appeals from the trial court’s order denying his postconviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3761 - 2005-03-31
and 940.23(1)(a) (1999‑2000).[1] Cason also appeals from the trial court’s order denying his postconviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3761 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
County of LaCrosse v. G. Bradford Merkl
COUNTY ORDINANCES. The trial was to the court. The court imposed a forfeiture of $175
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9149 - 2017-09-19
COUNTY ORDINANCES. The trial was to the court. The court imposed a forfeiture of $175
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9149 - 2017-09-19
State v. Duane Joseph Lieske
the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea and erred in denying him a Machner[1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9462 - 2005-03-31
the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea and erred in denying him a Machner[1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9462 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Duane Joseph Lieske
denying his motion for postconviction relief. Lieske claims the trial court erred in denying his motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9462 - 2017-09-19
denying his motion for postconviction relief. Lieske claims the trial court erred in denying his motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9462 - 2017-09-19
County of LaCrosse v. G. Bradford Merkl
and 9.946.41, La Crosse County Ordinances. The trial was to the court. The court imposed a forfeiture of $175
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9149 - 2005-03-31
and 9.946.41, La Crosse County Ordinances. The trial was to the court. The court imposed a forfeiture of $175
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9149 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. David E. Rusch
from the order denying his postconviction motions for a new trial. He contends on appeal that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11527 - 2017-09-19
from the order denying his postconviction motions for a new trial. He contends on appeal that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11527 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
with Nieves’s attempt to collect a previously entered judgment against the State.[1] We conclude that the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=80046 - 2012-03-26
with Nieves’s attempt to collect a previously entered judgment against the State.[1] We conclude that the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=80046 - 2012-03-26
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the State.1 We conclude that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=80046 - 2014-09-15
the State.1 We conclude that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=80046 - 2014-09-15
State v. Ernest E. Halford
trial because (1) he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by being permitted to represent himself
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2394 - 2005-03-31
trial because (1) he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by being permitted to represent himself
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2394 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
for a new trial. ¶1 CURLEY, P.J.[2] Jerry L. Miller appeals the judgment, entered following
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45985 - 2010-01-19
for a new trial. ¶1 CURLEY, P.J.[2] Jerry L. Miller appeals the judgment, entered following
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45985 - 2010-01-19