Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 25571 - 25580 of 59340 for quit claim deed.
Search results 25571 - 25580 of 59340 for quit claim deed.
[PDF]
State v. James Gulley
an order denying his postconviction motion for additional sentence credit. He claims the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15237 - 2017-09-21
an order denying his postconviction motion for additional sentence credit. He claims the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15237 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
the order denying his postconviction motion alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. He claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=110500 - 2014-04-21
the order denying his postconviction motion alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. He claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=110500 - 2014-04-21
[PDF]
_WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
to support a claim of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or law of the case. Per curiam opinions may
/ca/unptbl/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=142935 - 2017-09-21
to support a claim of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or law of the case. Per curiam opinions may
/ca/unptbl/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=142935 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
rulings on motions in limine. First, they claim the trial court erred in permitting “negative evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=161183 - 2017-09-21
rulings on motions in limine. First, they claim the trial court erred in permitting “negative evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=161183 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Joeddie Smith v. Gary R. McCaughtry
¶5 Smith raises six issues on appeal. He claims: (1) the certiorari return should have been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18010 - 2017-09-21
¶5 Smith raises six issues on appeal. He claims: (1) the certiorari return should have been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18010 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
claims did not necessarily support the imposition of a consecutive sentence. We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52522 - 2014-09-15
claims did not necessarily support the imposition of a consecutive sentence. We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52522 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
as a “new factor” claim. See State v. Klubertanz, 2006 WI App 71, ¶35, 291 Wis. 2d 751, 713 N.W.2d 116
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=157901 - 2017-09-21
as a “new factor” claim. See State v. Klubertanz, 2006 WI App 71, ¶35, 291 Wis. 2d 751, 713 N.W.2d 116
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=157901 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
and required the court to set a parole eligibility date, this claim does not assert a new factor but instead
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=291889 - 2020-09-30
and required the court to set a parole eligibility date, this claim does not assert a new factor but instead
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=291889 - 2020-09-30
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, appeals, and writs. We have repeatedly denied his claims. See Harris v. State (Harris I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191269 - 2017-09-21
, appeals, and writs. We have repeatedly denied his claims. See Harris v. State (Harris I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191269 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
claimed the bulk of the responsibility for the prank. The Commission amended its findings but did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35879 - 2014-09-15
claimed the bulk of the responsibility for the prank. The Commission amended its findings but did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35879 - 2014-09-15