Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 21321 - 21330 of 64598 for b's.
Search results 21321 - 21330 of 64598 for b's.
[PDF]
State v. Paul E. Kimmes
. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Vilas County: JAMES B. MOHR, Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13129 - 2017-09-21
. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Vilas County: JAMES B. MOHR, Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13129 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Donna Walag v. Town of Randall
, § 66.014(2)(b), STATS., requires the petition be filed with the circuit court within six months of date
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11576 - 2017-09-19
, § 66.014(2)(b), STATS., requires the petition be filed with the circuit court within six months of date
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11576 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Larry Woodrow Myartt
and, therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied Myartt’s motion to suppress the evidence. B
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3414 - 2017-09-19
and, therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied Myartt’s motion to suppress the evidence. B
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3414 - 2017-09-19
State v. Kurt W. Warrington
with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .10% or more, contrary to § 346.63(1)(b), Stats., second offense
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8078 - 2005-03-31
with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .10% or more, contrary to § 346.63(1)(b), Stats., second offense
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8078 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
violated South Milwaukee’s ordinances, which adopted WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(a) & (b). The circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32482 - 2014-09-15
violated South Milwaukee’s ordinances, which adopted WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(a) & (b). The circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32482 - 2014-09-15
State v. William Staples
examination. Accordingly, he did not preserve this issue for appeal and we will not consider it. B. Officer’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2697 - 2005-03-31
examination. Accordingly, he did not preserve this issue for appeal and we will not consider it. B. Officer’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2697 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
jeopardy was not violated. B. New Factor ¶12 Haizel also contends that the DOC’s failure to place him
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=372580 - 2021-06-02
jeopardy was not violated. B. New Factor ¶12 Haizel also contends that the DOC’s failure to place him
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=372580 - 2021-06-02
[PDF]
State v. Nathaniel S. Sherrod
-APPELLANT. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Racine County: ALLAN B
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12731 - 2017-09-21
-APPELLANT. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Racine County: ALLAN B
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12731 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
)(b). Stephens’s appeal is not brought pursuant to RULE 809.30 and he had ninety days to appeal
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=989608 - 2025-07-30
)(b). Stephens’s appeal is not brought pursuant to RULE 809.30 and he had ninety days to appeal
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=989608 - 2025-07-30
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
supreme court stated that “[b]ecause these statements mirrored the statutory standard, they met
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=927060 - 2025-03-19
supreme court stated that “[b]ecause these statements mirrored the statutory standard, they met
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=927060 - 2025-03-19