Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 23891 - 23900 of 57369 for id.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1042535 - 2025-11-25

Ronald W. Coutts, Sr. v. Wisconsin Retirement Board
court. Id. In so doing, we determine whether the agency kept within its jurisdiction, whether it acted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9347 - 2005-03-31

State v. Louis D. Thomas
a strong presumption of constitutionality for legislative enactments. Id. Every presumption favoring
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6510 - 2005-03-31

Jesus Ortega, Jr. v. Gary R. McCaughtry
at a prison disciplinary hearing, “that is sufficient evidence to satisfy due process.” Id.; see
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13125 - 2005-03-31

State v. Debra Noble
the test backwards. We examine the record to find evidence to support the jury verdict. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16316 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
of persuasion remains with the State. See id., ¶3 (plurality opinion). ¶23 A three-member plurality
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=271462 - 2020-07-21

Faye Lynn Boland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
of the evidence or an erroneous view of the law. Id., 180 Wis. 2d at 431, 509 N.W. 2d. We will therefore affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16275 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Louis D. Thomas
is presented, there exists a strong presumption of constitutionality for legislative enactments. Id. Every
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6510 - 2017-09-19

Frontsheet
proceed to weigh the evidence. Id. III ¶20 We address first whether the circuit court erred in finding
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32919 - 2008-06-02

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 24, 2010 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of ...
. The Court: [D]id you have a chance this morning or yesterday to talk to [your attorney] about the effect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=47300 - 2010-02-23