Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 28081 - 28090 of 61721 for does.
Search results 28081 - 28090 of 61721 for does.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
classified crimes, WIS. STAT. § 973.01(2)(d), does not apply. Rather, for unclassified crimes, the maximum
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=244172 - 2019-07-25
classified crimes, WIS. STAT. § 973.01(2)(d), does not apply. Rather, for unclassified crimes, the maximum
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=244172 - 2019-07-25
Daniel Otte v. Yvonne Otte
, 151, 502 N.W.2d 918 (Ct. App. 1993) (“the trial court’s failure to use the ‘magic words’ does
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3597 - 2005-03-31
, 151, 502 N.W.2d 918 (Ct. App. 1993) (“the trial court’s failure to use the ‘magic words’ does
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3597 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Outagamie County v. Town of Greenville
. STAT. § 66.60(12)(a) does not. ¶9 This court has recognized that “[i]f a statute contains a given
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15649 - 2017-09-21
. STAT. § 66.60(12)(a) does not. ¶9 This court has recognized that “[i]f a statute contains a given
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15649 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. 2012AP1024-FT 4 Rotruck appeals. ¶6 Rotruck does not challenge the officer’s initial stop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=87196 - 2014-09-15
. 2012AP1024-FT 4 Rotruck appeals. ¶6 Rotruck does not challenge the officer’s initial stop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=87196 - 2014-09-15
Brown County Human Services Dept. v. Laurie M.R.
. The statutory list of specific circumstances does not proscribe additional grounds for extending time deadlines
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15215 - 2005-03-31
. The statutory list of specific circumstances does not proscribe additional grounds for extending time deadlines
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15215 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Samuel Jones
jeopardy clause does not bar retrial because “the defendant is exercising control over the mistrial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2896 - 2017-09-19
jeopardy clause does not bar retrial because “the defendant is exercising control over the mistrial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2896 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
WI APP 25
such as “cans of beer, bottles of liquor,” and Coffee does not dispute this.3 More significantly, however
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=239468 - 2019-08-13
such as “cans of beer, bottles of liquor,” and Coffee does not dispute this.3 More significantly, however
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=239468 - 2019-08-13
COURT OF APPEALS
to a complete stop at the intersection and then stopped again before proceeding. But, the law does not require
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35777 - 2009-03-10
to a complete stop at the intersection and then stopped again before proceeding. But, the law does not require
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35777 - 2009-03-10
Betty G. Jensen v. Milwaukee MutualInsurance Company
—not claim preclusion. As noted, issue preclusion does not require an identity of parties. Id. at 550-51
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9429 - 2005-03-31
—not claim preclusion. As noted, issue preclusion does not require an identity of parties. Id. at 550-51
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9429 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
973.20(1g)(a). “[T]he restitution statute does not define the term ‘victim,’” see Hoseman, 334 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=94791 - 2013-04-01
973.20(1g)(a). “[T]he restitution statute does not define the term ‘victim,’” see Hoseman, 334 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=94791 - 2013-04-01