Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2191 - 2200 of 82690 for case code.
Search results 2191 - 2200 of 82690 for case code.
[PDF]
Vicki L. Thomas v. Frederick W. Thomas
purposes. She claims that WIS. ADM. CODE DWD § 40.02(13)(i) and case law require these benefits
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15887 - 2017-09-21
purposes. She claims that WIS. ADM. CODE DWD § 40.02(13)(i) and case law require these benefits
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15887 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
added). · Case law recognizes “that a major purpose of Wis. Admin. Code ch. ATCP 132
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=134905 - 2015-02-11
added). · Case law recognizes “that a major purpose of Wis. Admin. Code ch. ATCP 132
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=134905 - 2015-02-11
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
., ¶15 (emphasis added). Case law recognizes “that a major purpose of WIS. ADMIN. CODE ch. ATCP 132
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=134905 - 2017-09-21
., ¶15 (emphasis added). Case law recognizes “that a major purpose of WIS. ADMIN. CODE ch. ATCP 132
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=134905 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Town of Cedarburg v. Thomas Shewczyk
to enact its CUP under the Zoning Chapter of its Code of Ordinances. In this case, the CUP was a special
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5110 - 2017-09-19
to enact its CUP under the Zoning Chapter of its Code of Ordinances. In this case, the CUP was a special
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5110 - 2017-09-19
Town of Cedarburg v. Thomas Shewczyk
. In this case, the CUP was a special limited conditional use permit under sec. 10-1-11 of the Town’s zoning code
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5110 - 2007-04-16
. In this case, the CUP was a special limited conditional use permit under sec. 10-1-11 of the Town’s zoning code
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5110 - 2007-04-16
COURT OF APPEALS
probation case not only was unfair, but also defied its own rules,[3] the Wisconsin Administrative Code[4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34830 - 2008-12-09
probation case not only was unfair, but also defied its own rules,[3] the Wisconsin Administrative Code[4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34830 - 2008-12-09
Sharon I. O'Malley v. Lora McKizzie
violated Wis. Adm. Code § ATCP 134.09(4). Because the record does not reveal any basis on which the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11079 - 2005-03-31
violated Wis. Adm. Code § ATCP 134.09(4). Because the record does not reveal any basis on which the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11079 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
the revocation hearing is waived. WIS. ADM. CODE § DOC 331.06(4). Arguably, the decision to revoke does
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35863 - 2014-09-15
the revocation hearing is waived. WIS. ADM. CODE § DOC 331.06(4). Arguably, the decision to revoke does
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35863 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Sharon I. O'Malley v. Lora McKizzie
to award attorney fees and double damages to her after it found that O'Malley had violated WIS. ADM. CODE
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11079 - 2017-09-19
to award attorney fees and double damages to her after it found that O'Malley had violated WIS. ADM. CODE
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11079 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
or mandatory parole, for the purpose of calculating the maximum reincarceration term. In both cases
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35863 - 2009-03-11
or mandatory parole, for the purpose of calculating the maximum reincarceration term. In both cases
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35863 - 2009-03-11