Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2201 - 2210 of 10400 for ed.
Search results 2201 - 2210 of 10400 for ed.
COURT OF APPEALS
conclude that Schulman provided “specific and articulable facts that warrant[ed] a reasonable belief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36807 - 2009-06-16
conclude that Schulman provided “specific and articulable facts that warrant[ed] a reasonable belief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36807 - 2009-06-16
COURT OF APPEALS
the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 4-5.2, commentary (2d ed. 1980), which opined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45773 - 2010-01-13
the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 4-5.2, commentary (2d ed. 1980), which opined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45773 - 2010-01-13
COURT OF APPEALS
are fully supported by the record. ¶14 First, the prosecutor testified that he “refus[ed]” to dismiss
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50001 - 2010-05-17
are fully supported by the record. ¶14 First, the prosecutor testified that he “refus[ed]” to dismiss
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50001 - 2010-05-17
CA Blank Order
needed to find that he “caus[ed] bodily injury or harm to another[.]” Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 303.12(1
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=142793 - 2015-06-01
needed to find that he “caus[ed] bodily injury or harm to another[.]” Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 303.12(1
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=142793 - 2015-06-01
[PDF]
NOTICE
193, 742 N.W.2d 923, where we adopt[ed] the view articulated by the supreme court of Minnesota
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=54733 - 2014-09-15
193, 742 N.W.2d 923, where we adopt[ed] the view articulated by the supreme court of Minnesota
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=54733 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
(3d ed. 2012); see, e.g., State v. Kitowski, 44 Wis. 2d 259, 261, 170 N.W.2d 703 (1969) (corpus
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=104498 - 2017-09-21
(3d ed. 2012); see, e.g., State v. Kitowski, 44 Wis. 2d 259, 261, 170 N.W.2d 703 (1969) (corpus
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=104498 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
determination, “allud[ed] specifically to the factors in ... WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3).” See Julie A. B., 225 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=92907 - 2014-09-15
determination, “allud[ed] specifically to the factors in ... WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3).” See Julie A. B., 225 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=92907 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
) the Milwaukee County District Attorney at that time had “mistreat[ed] persons of color”; and (3) he is “factual
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44702 - 2009-12-21
) the Milwaukee County District Attorney at that time had “mistreat[ed] persons of color”; and (3) he is “factual
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44702 - 2009-12-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
). In addition, the Seventh Circuit had persuasively “elaborate[ed] that ‘[t]hese are the very types of cases
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=171370 - 2017-09-21
). In addition, the Seventh Circuit had persuasively “elaborate[ed] that ‘[t]hese are the very types of cases
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=171370 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
. In support, she contends that: The State fail[ed] to show: 1) the purpose or use of this area; 2) the size
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=79796 - 2012-03-19
. In support, she contends that: The State fail[ed] to show: 1) the purpose or use of this area; 2) the size
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=79796 - 2012-03-19