Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 25311 - 25320 of 57706 for id.

State v. Timothy J. Powers
law. See id. at ¶2. We concluded in Thorstad that, so long as the four requirements outlined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15578 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Brown County Human Services Department v. Connie D.
will not reverse the trial court’s decision unless it erroneously exercised its discretion. See id. “A trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2357 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Herbert E. Droste v. David H. Schwarz
not substitute [its] view of the evidence for that of the [administrative decision maker].” Id. (citations
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15671 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
satisfies the legal standards for ineffective assistance is a question of law we review de novo. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=244106 - 2019-07-23

County of Fond du Lac v. Kevin C. Derksen
vehicle is a privilege and not an inherent right.” Id. We recognize that Derksen has cited a couple
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4184 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Cheryl C. Britton
). The issue is resolved by examining the totality of the circumstances. Id. On review, we uphold the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11173 - 2017-09-19

State v. Jeffery Rittenhouse
a sentence unless a trial court has erroneously exercised its discretion. See id. at 463. The trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2573 - 2005-03-31

Exactech, Inc. v. Terex Cranes, Inc.
of the jury’s role to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight given to their testimony. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18875 - 2005-07-05

[PDF] Brown County Human Services Department v. Connie D.
will not reverse the trial court’s decision unless it erroneously exercised its discretion. See id. “A trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2356 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] State v. Kurt D. Flitcroft
by the objective standard of what a reasonably prudent attorney would do in similar circumstances. Id. at 636-37
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11712 - 2017-09-20