Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 28881 - 28890 of 83771 for simple case search/1000.
Search results 28881 - 28890 of 83771 for simple case search/1000.
N.E.M. v. Eugene Strigel
Case No.: 95-0755 Complete
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16995 - 2005-03-31
Case No.: 95-0755 Complete
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16995 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Paula Oltrogge
in misdemeanor cases “consist of 6 persons.” Three weeks after Oltrogge’s trial, the supreme court decided
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15423 - 2017-09-21
in misdemeanor cases “consist of 6 persons.” Three weeks after Oltrogge’s trial, the supreme court decided
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15423 - 2017-09-21
Precision Erecting, Inc. v. AFW Foundry, Inc.
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 98-0922
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13823 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 98-0922
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13823 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Precision Erecting, Inc. v. AFW Foundry, Inc.
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 98-0922 Complete
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13823 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 98-0922 Complete
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13823 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
reject his arguments and affirm the judgment and order. ¶2 This Waukesha county case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58813 - 2011-01-11
reject his arguments and affirm the judgment and order. ¶2 This Waukesha county case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58813 - 2011-01-11
COURT OF APPEALS
a case consolidation document at that hearing, which set forth the same agreement.[2] The plea
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=97931 - 2013-06-10
a case consolidation document at that hearing, which set forth the same agreement.[2] The plea
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=97931 - 2013-06-10
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
was not given the opportunity to hear and examine evidence that bears on a significant issue in the case, even
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=540916 - 2022-07-08
was not given the opportunity to hear and examine evidence that bears on a significant issue in the case, even
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=540916 - 2022-07-08
Judith H. Atkinson v. Everbrite, Inc.
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 98-1806
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14192 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 98-1806
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14192 - 2005-03-31
State v. James Nesbitt
. Our review of the trial court’s use of the repeater penalty in this case requires the application
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13113 - 2005-03-31
. Our review of the trial court’s use of the repeater penalty in this case requires the application
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13113 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
to the burglaries in this case. The court also theorized that Fish had burglarized in Burnett County more than
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=855305 - 2024-10-01
to the burglaries in this case. The court also theorized that Fish had burglarized in Burnett County more than
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=855305 - 2024-10-01