Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2791 - 2800 of 82338 for case code.
Search results 2791 - 2800 of 82338 for case code.
[PDF]
WI APP 3
2017 WI APP 3 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2015AP325
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=181717 - 2017-09-21
2017 WI APP 3 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2015AP325
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=181717 - 2017-09-21
Milwaukee District Council 48 v. Milwaukee County
2001 WI 65 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: 98-1126 Complete Title of Case
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17391 - 2005-03-31
2001 WI 65 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: 98-1126 Complete Title of Case
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17391 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Milwaukee District Council 48 v. Milwaukee County
2001 WI 65 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: 98-1126 Complete Title
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17391 - 2017-09-21
2001 WI 65 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: 98-1126 Complete Title
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17391 - 2017-09-21
Michael S. Elkins v. Gary McCaughtry
then sought review by the CCE. The complaint was again rejected as untimely under Wis. Admin. Code § DOC
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5279 - 2005-03-31
then sought review by the CCE. The complaint was again rejected as untimely under Wis. Admin. Code § DOC
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5279 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Michael S. Elkins v. Gary McCaughtry
. The complaint was again rejected as untimely under WIS. ADMIN. CODE § DOC 310.09(6). The CCE further stated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5279 - 2017-09-19
. The complaint was again rejected as untimely under WIS. ADMIN. CODE § DOC 310.09(6). The CCE further stated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5279 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
with the zoning code as previously ordered by the circuit court. This court affirms. I. BACKGROUND ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=737200 - 2023-12-06
with the zoning code as previously ordered by the circuit court. This court affirms. I. BACKGROUND ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=737200 - 2023-12-06
COURT OF APPEALS
of them, John Schott, testified at the suppression hearing was to check the tavern’s licenses and for code
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34701 - 2008-11-24
of them, John Schott, testified at the suppression hearing was to check the tavern’s licenses and for code
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34701 - 2008-11-24
[PDF]
NOTICE
and for code violations. The circuit court found that ten to fifteen officers were part of the “license
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34701 - 2014-09-15
and for code violations. The circuit court found that ten to fifteen officers were part of the “license
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34701 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191683 - 2017-09-21
of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191683 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. John E. Stephens
PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9457 - 2017-09-19
PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9457 - 2017-09-19