Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 29461 - 29470 of 97712 for civil court case status online.

COURT OF APPEALS
to a sentence she was then serving in Waukesha county circuit court case No. 2000CF853.[2] Crewz has also
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34444 - 2010-02-01

COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 3, 2010 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46452 - 2010-02-02

COURT OF APPEALS
petitions that this Court is now seeing repeatedly; because all of these cases seem to be assigned
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=109783 - 2014-04-01

COURT OF APPEALS
court did not err, we affirm. ¶2 This case involves tragic, but undisputed facts. In December
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34747 - 2008-12-02

COURT OF APPEALS
at sentencing, held just twenty-one days before Rowan’s initial appearance in the present case.[4] The court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71316 - 2011-09-26

Ronald A. Arthur v. William J. Keefe
arises out of two trial court cases. In April 1995, Arthur filed a complaint in Marquette County seeking
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14365 - 2005-03-31

Ronald A. Arthur v. Hanson & Leja Lumber
arises out of two trial court cases. In April 1995, Arthur filed a complaint in Marquette County seeking
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14366 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Ronald A. Arthur v. Hanson & Leja Lumber
. The court instructed the parties to file appropriate motions to clarify the status of the two cases
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14366 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Ronald A. Arthur v. William J. Keefe
. The court instructed the parties to file appropriate motions to clarify the status of the two cases
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14365 - 2014-09-15

Cynthia Sanchez v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp.
. ¶9 Though noting that it was a close case, the trial court did not find excusable neglect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18254 - 2005-05-23