Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2391 - 2400 of 8262 for gf-175.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
is committed to the circuit court’s discretion. Pietrowski v. Dufrane, 2001 WI App 175, ¶5, 247 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145095 - 2017-09-21

State v. Angela Jean Gustum
sentencing discretion. Sentencing lies within the discretion of the trial court. See State v. Echols, 175
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19859 - 2005-10-10

[PDF] Joyce Judith Syphard v. Ronald James Syphard
TV & Appliance, 151 Wis. 2d 175, 186, 443 N.W.2d 662 (1989) (No standard exists to review a trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5243 - 2017-09-19

William Gill v. City and Common Council of Oconomowoc
Nat’l Bank v. Episcopal Homes Mgmt., Inc., 195 Wis. 2d 485, 496‑97, 536 N.W.2d 175 (Ct. App. 1995). We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18858 - 2005-07-05

COURT OF APPEALS
App 100, ¶6, 336 Wis. 2d 175, 801 N.W.2d 821 (citations and one set of quotation marks omitted). ¶5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131864 - 2014-12-22

State v. James Gulley
to Escalona-Naranjo. See State v. Flowers, 221 Wis.2d 20, 586 N.W.2d 175 (Ct. App. 1998), review denied, 222
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15237 - 2005-03-31

State v. James Stankiewicz
), which has been codified by § 968.24, Stats.[3] As this court stated in State v. King, 175 Wis.2d 146
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10828 - 2005-03-31

State v. Jean H.
a reasonable conclusion. See Loy v. Bunderson, 107 Wis.2d 400, 415, 320 N.W.2d 175, 184 (1982
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15634 - 2005-03-31

Clarence Pelton v. Division of Hearing and Appeals
is a question of law which this court reviews without deferring to the circuit court. State v. Miller, 175 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11718 - 2005-03-31

The Estate of Katrina L. Lynch v. Carol J. Kane
400, 414-15, 320 N.W.2d 175 (1982). ¶8 In denying the Lynches’ motion in limine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3662 - 2005-03-31