Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2541 - 2550 of 49848 for writ of certiorari forms.
Search results 2541 - 2550 of 49848 for writ of certiorari forms.
[PDF]
Patrick A. Baugh v. Michael J. Sullivan
Baugh appeals from an order denying his petition for certiorari. The issue on appeal is whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12739 - 2017-09-21
Baugh appeals from an order denying his petition for certiorari. The issue on appeal is whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12739 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Donald A. Thompson v. Lacrosse County Board of Adjustment
their amended petition for writ of certiorari January 13, 1994. They alleged that: If the setback
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8062 - 2017-09-19
their amended petition for writ of certiorari January 13, 1994. They alleged that: If the setback
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8062 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Town of Norway Sanitary District #1 v. Racine County Drainage Board of Commissioners
in which the Board upheld its assessment, it petitioned the trial court for a writ of certiorari
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13085 - 2017-09-21
in which the Board upheld its assessment, it petitioned the trial court for a writ of certiorari
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13085 - 2017-09-21
Town of Norway Sanitary District #1 v. Racine County Drainage Board of Commissioners
upheld its assessment, it petitioned the trial court for a writ of certiorari to review the Board’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13085 - 2005-03-31
upheld its assessment, it petitioned the trial court for a writ of certiorari to review the Board’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13085 - 2005-03-31
Donald A. Thompson v. Lacrosse County Board of Adjustment
. The Thompsons filed their amended petition for writ of certiorari January 13, 1994. They alleged
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8062 - 2005-03-31
. The Thompsons filed their amended petition for writ of certiorari January 13, 1994. They alleged
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8062 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Richard L. Hermann v. Town of Delavan
in assessment rolls are often addressed “by certiorari to review the action of boards of review.” Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10266 - 2017-09-20
in assessment rolls are often addressed “by certiorari to review the action of boards of review.” Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10266 - 2017-09-20
Richard L. Hermann v. Town of Delavan
then proceeded for review through a writ of certiorari. The case eventually reached the supreme court, which
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10266 - 2005-03-31
then proceeded for review through a writ of certiorari. The case eventually reached the supreme court, which
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10266 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
SC Table of Pending Cases - Added recently accepted cases 2012AP2520 and 2013AP907; added decisions
, CERQ = Certified Question, BYPA = Petition to bypass, ORIG = Original Action, WRIT = Petition
/sc/sccase/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=135461 - 2017-09-21
, CERQ = Certified Question, BYPA = Petition to bypass, ORIG = Original Action, WRIT = Petition
/sc/sccase/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=135461 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Rainbow Springs Golf Company, Inc. v. Waukesha County
. appeals from an order of the circuit court affirming on certiorari review the Waukesha County Park
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18330 - 2017-09-21
. appeals from an order of the circuit court affirming on certiorari review the Waukesha County Park
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18330 - 2017-09-21
Rainbow Springs Golf Company, Inc. v. Waukesha County
on certiorari review the Waukesha County Park and Planning Commission’s (planning commission) decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18330 - 2005-05-31
on certiorari review the Waukesha County Park and Planning Commission’s (planning commission) decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18330 - 2005-05-31