Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 21441 - 21450 of 58940 for SMALL CLAIMS.
Search results 21441 - 21450 of 58940 for SMALL CLAIMS.
[PDF]
NOTICE
Hernandez’s claim of evidentiary error and challenge to the form of the verdict and affirm the judgment. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32142 - 2014-09-15
Hernandez’s claim of evidentiary error and challenge to the form of the verdict and affirm the judgment. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32142 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Brandon J. Matke
(OMVWI) and imposed a sentence for sixth-offense OMVWI. He claims the trial court erred in sentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6804 - 2017-09-20
(OMVWI) and imposed a sentence for sixth-offense OMVWI. He claims the trial court erred in sentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6804 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
court found that the record did not support Church’s claim that it had prejudged Church’s sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=527537 - 2022-06-01
court found that the record did not support Church’s claim that it had prejudged Church’s sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=527537 - 2022-06-01
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that Fisher’s claim was procedurally barred and denied his motion. On appeal, we affirmed after briefing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1000973 - 2025-08-26
that Fisher’s claim was procedurally barred and denied his motion. On appeal, we affirmed after briefing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1000973 - 2025-08-26
[PDF]
State v. Terrence L. Webb
of counsel claim. Because we reject his arguments on these issues, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10964 - 2017-09-19
of counsel claim. Because we reject his arguments on these issues, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10964 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
We next turn to a claim preclusion argument the Village makes. It is not apparent that the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78861 - 2012-02-29
We next turn to a claim preclusion argument the Village makes. It is not apparent that the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78861 - 2012-02-29
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
then filed a motion for remand, alleging that he could corroborate his newly discovered evidence claim. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191075 - 2017-09-21
then filed a motion for remand, alleging that he could corroborate his newly discovered evidence claim. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191075 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
.” Wirth became upset and irritated and told Luick, “[D]on’t fucking touch me.” Wirth claimed that Luick
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93187 - 2013-02-20
.” Wirth became upset and irritated and told Luick, “[D]on’t fucking touch me.” Wirth claimed that Luick
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93187 - 2013-02-20
[PDF]
Herbert M. Schauer v. Matthew S. Baker
that the Schauers’ claim was barred by WIS. STAT. § 893.33(2). ¶3 The circuit court initially refused to grant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5392 - 2017-09-19
that the Schauers’ claim was barred by WIS. STAT. § 893.33(2). ¶3 The circuit court initially refused to grant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5392 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
the two motions giving rise to this appeal. In the first motion (Motion I), Mays claimed he was denied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30297 - 2007-09-17
the two motions giving rise to this appeal. In the first motion (Motion I), Mays claimed he was denied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30297 - 2007-09-17