Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 27361 - 27370 of 83454 for case code.
Search results 27361 - 27370 of 83454 for case code.
[PDF]
State v. Charles E. Carthage
the entry of the proper judgment or remit the case to the trial court for entry of the proper judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6431 - 2017-09-19
the entry of the proper judgment or remit the case to the trial court for entry of the proper judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6431 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. § 102.03(2)’s exclusivity provision. ¶9 The principal case Schmuck relies on is not on point
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70058 - 2014-09-15
. § 102.03(2)’s exclusivity provision. ¶9 The principal case Schmuck relies on is not on point
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70058 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
that Morgese is not entitled to a resentencing, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Morgese pled guilty in case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30483 - 2007-10-09
that Morgese is not entitled to a resentencing, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Morgese pled guilty in case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30483 - 2007-10-09
COURT OF APPEALS
in a zoning case. We affirm. ¶2 The Town of LaPrairie commenced this action against Mule Hill
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30392 - 2009-10-19
in a zoning case. We affirm. ¶2 The Town of LaPrairie commenced this action against Mule Hill
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30392 - 2009-10-19
Pamela B. Foard v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
. In Larson, we stated: “[T]he parties do not dispute the historical facts in this case. Thus, this issue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8231 - 2005-03-31
. In Larson, we stated: “[T]he parties do not dispute the historical facts in this case. Thus, this issue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8231 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
cases:[1] (1) possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (marijuana), more than 2500
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29468 - 2007-06-25
cases:[1] (1) possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (marijuana), more than 2500
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29468 - 2007-06-25
State v. Douglas Wolff
defense counsel nor the prosecutor elicited evidence of the result. In this case, defense counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10701 - 2015-07-09
defense counsel nor the prosecutor elicited evidence of the result. In this case, defense counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10701 - 2015-07-09
Bernice Spiegelberg v. State
. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.61 this court certifies the appeal in this case to the Wisconsin Supreme
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20161 - 2005-11-08
. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.61 this court certifies the appeal in this case to the Wisconsin Supreme
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20161 - 2005-11-08
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, that this case is not appropriate for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. With respect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=159458 - 2017-09-21
, that this case is not appropriate for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. With respect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=159458 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, 317 Wis. 2d 383, 766 N.W.2d 551 (citation omitted). Determining probable cause is a case-by-case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=233836 - 2019-01-30
, 317 Wis. 2d 383, 766 N.W.2d 551 (citation omitted). Determining probable cause is a case-by-case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=233836 - 2019-01-30