Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 25551 - 25560 of 65130 for or b.

COURT OF APPEALS
. ¶10 Indeed, the crux of the City’s argument is that “[b]efore and after the partial taking
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50755 - 2010-06-08

[PDF] WI 109
)(b); see also SCR ch. 60, Preamble to the Code of Judicial Conduct. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
/sc/scord/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=206163 - 2017-12-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
Swan with PAC, second offense, in violation of WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(b), based on the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=167017 - 2017-09-21

State v. Frankie Groenke
the issue. We therefore deem this issue waived. B. Newly Discovered Evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11724 - 2005-03-31

David M. Iushewitz v. Milwaukee County PersonnelReview Board
, the Board's claim that claim preclusion bars the mandamus action is wholly without merit. B. Frivolous Appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8541 - 2005-03-31

State v. Milton H. Smith
] The form is broken down into two sections, marked “A” and “B.” The “A” section consists of five paragraphs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15286 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] NOTICE
alcohol concentration in excess of 0.08, in violation of WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(b), third offense. He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59077 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] NOTICE
as follows: [B]ased on the record before us, we cannot determine whether in the communication between
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=62775 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] James Cowden v. David Kadlec
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT III JAMES COWDEN AND STEVEN EVERT, D/B
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3965 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] CA Blank Order
itself, establishes the integrity of the evidence. See § 974.07(7)(b). Vega’s postconviction motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=980324 - 2025-07-08