Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2661 - 2670 of 3969 for davi.

[PDF] FICE OF THE CLERK
. #2015CV6824) Before Reilly, P.J., Gundrum and Davis, JJ. Summary disposition orders may not be cited
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=255911 - 2020-03-11

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
S. BASILIERE, Judges. Affirmed. Before Neubauer, C.J., Gundrum and Davis, JJ. Per curiam
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=398591 - 2021-07-28

[PDF] State v. James L. Holloway
favorable to the defendant. State v. Davis, 144 Wis.2d 852, 855, 425 N.W.2d 411, 412 (1988
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8316 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] State v. Melvin C. Welch
the trial to proceed in Iowa County over Welch’s objection. See State v. Davis, 2001 WI 136, ¶28, 248 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4866 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
) (quoting State v. Borrell, 167 Wis. 2d 749, 781-82, 482 N.W.2d 883 (1992)); see also State v. Davis, 2005
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=173768 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
Baumgarten’s initial story did not cause the jury to abdicate its fact-finding role. See State v. Davis, 199
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=88800 - 2014-09-15

State v. Daniel Smith
to the defendant and the requested instruction. State v. Davis, 144 Wis.2d 852, 855, 425 N.W.2d 411, 412 (1988
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10827 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
., Gundrum and Davis, JJ. Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=284276 - 2020-09-02

Everett Carlson v. Oconto County Board of Canvassers
-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Alyson K. Zierdt of Davis & Kuelthau, S.C., Oshkosh
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2765 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 20, 2007 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court o...
be invoking the right to counsel” then precedent does not require the cessation of questioning. Davis v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28508 - 2007-03-19