Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 25651 - 25660 of 34733 for in n.

COURT OF APPEALS
, 162 Wis. 2d 797, 819 n.13, 471 N.W.2d 7 (1991). ¶10 The circuit court’s reasoning rests
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=83559 - 2012-06-11

State v. Susan Holzl
and that she did so intentionally. Our standard of review is clear: [I]n reviewing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13333 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
amendment considerations still apply.” Anderson, 142 Wis. 2d at 169-70 n.4 (citations omitted). We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=124280 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Thomas W. Jackson
presents a question of law that we review de novo. See Reyes v. Greatway Ins. Co., 227 Wis. 2d 357, 364
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15467 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Peggy Sue Podolak v. John Peter Podolak
not address this aspect of the maintenance award. See Reiman Ass’n v. R/A Adver., 102 Wis. 2d 305, 306 n.1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6283 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS
ABKA Ltd. P’ship v. Board of Review, 231 Wis. 2d 328, 349 n.9, 603 N.W.2d 217 (1999) (we do not address
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=141255 - 2015-05-05

State v. Olayinka Kazeem Lagundoye
. at 724 n.13.
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5544 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
will uphold the trial court’s decision absent an erroneous exercise of its discretion. See id. at 585 n.1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30621 - 2007-10-16

State v. Linda Lacey
App 262, ¶5 n.1, 248 Wis. 2d 865, 637 N.W.2d 774 (“It is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6992 - 2005-03-31

State v. Edward E.Tolliver
a gun rather than dealing drugs." United States v. Roberson, 90 F.3rd 75, 81, n.4 (1996).
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12347 - 2005-03-31