Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 21161 - 21170 of 28855 for W.
Search results 21161 - 21170 of 28855 for W.
2008 WI APP 138
(quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968)). “[W]hether an officer had reasonable suspicion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33728 - 2011-06-14
(quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968)). “[W]hether an officer had reasonable suspicion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33728 - 2011-06-14
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
. Henley Electronic Notice Molly Marie Schmidt Waukesha County District Attorney’s Office 515 W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=926075 - 2025-03-12
. Henley Electronic Notice Molly Marie Schmidt Waukesha County District Attorney’s Office 515 W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=926075 - 2025-03-12
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
states: [W]hen the court imposed sentences to run consecutive to the revocation sentences, the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=206462 - 2018-01-03
states: [W]hen the court imposed sentences to run consecutive to the revocation sentences, the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=206462 - 2018-01-03
[PDF]
State v. William R. Peterson
of the record nor a generally known fact suitable for judicial notice. As we stated in Hoeft, “[w]e recognize
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13435 - 2017-09-21
of the record nor a generally known fact suitable for judicial notice. As we stated in Hoeft, “[w]e recognize
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13435 - 2017-09-21
Quality State Oil Company, Inc. v. Michael VanDaalwyk
: “[w]hen interpreting a statute, our purpose is to discern legislative intent. To this end, we look
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6988 - 2005-03-31
: “[w]hen interpreting a statute, our purpose is to discern legislative intent. To this end, we look
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6988 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
superficially in his initial brief. ¶18 “[W]here the presumption does not apply, the defendant must
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=279864 - 2020-08-18
superficially in his initial brief. ¶18 “[W]here the presumption does not apply, the defendant must
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=279864 - 2020-08-18
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
preclusion is inapplicable,” and “exempts [w]orker’s [c]ompensation claims from having preclusive effect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=95946 - 2014-09-15
preclusion is inapplicable,” and “exempts [w]orker’s [c]ompensation claims from having preclusive effect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=95946 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
an order of the circuit court for Columbia County: W. ANDREW VOIGT, Judge. Affirmed. Before
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=112361 - 2017-09-21
an order of the circuit court for Columbia County: W. ANDREW VOIGT, Judge. Affirmed. Before
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=112361 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
struggle with accepting that an uncle could sexually assault his young niece. The prosecutor stated: [W]e
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59410 - 2011-02-01
struggle with accepting that an uncle could sexually assault his young niece. The prosecutor stated: [W]e
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59410 - 2011-02-01
[PDF]
Axel Albert Johnson v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc.
they paid for the ticket and they had no reasonable opportunity to negotiate it.6 "[W]e do not adopt
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11124 - 2017-09-19
they paid for the ticket and they had no reasonable opportunity to negotiate it.6 "[W]e do not adopt
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11124 - 2017-09-19