Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 24941 - 24950 of 98491 for civil court case status online.
Search results 24941 - 24950 of 98491 for civil court case status online.
Dane County Department of Human Services v. Kenneth M.
of a child.” The court noted that the evaluators’ reports were not privileged in the CHIPS case, given
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20284 - 2005-11-16
of a child.” The court noted that the evaluators’ reports were not privileged in the CHIPS case, given
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20284 - 2005-11-16
[PDF]
Dane County Department of Human Services v. Kenneth M.
NOTICE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 17, 2005 Cornelia G
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20284 - 2017-09-21
NOTICE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 17, 2005 Cornelia G
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20284 - 2017-09-21
CA Blank Order
to each of the five pending cases. With regard to the present case, the trial court ascertained Jones’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=97010 - 2013-05-21
to each of the five pending cases. With regard to the present case, the trial court ascertained Jones’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=97010 - 2013-05-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
NOTICE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 10, 2011 A. John
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60983 - 2014-09-15
NOTICE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 10, 2011 A. John
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60983 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
condition of his probation.” ¶14 Before ruling, the circuit court noted that this case “goes back 20
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=189749 - 2017-09-21
condition of his probation.” ¶14 Before ruling, the circuit court noted that this case “goes back 20
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=189749 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
suppression motion but remarked it was an “exceedingly close case.” The court made findings consistent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=248344 - 2019-10-08
suppression motion but remarked it was an “exceedingly close case.” The court made findings consistent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=248344 - 2019-10-08
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 29, 2016 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=164258 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 29, 2016 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=164258 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 3, 2022 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=517340 - 2022-05-03
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 3, 2022 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=517340 - 2022-05-03
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, 786 N.W.2d 15 (“Typically, an appellate court should decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=676618 - 2023-07-06
, 786 N.W.2d 15 (“Typically, an appellate court should decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=676618 - 2023-07-06
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
” in this case because the supreme court’s decision was “fractured” and “[t]here was no agreement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=253420 - 2020-02-06
” in this case because the supreme court’s decision was “fractured” and “[t]here was no agreement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=253420 - 2020-02-06