Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 29701 - 29710 of 97782 for civil court case status online.
Search results 29701 - 29710 of 97782 for civil court case status online.
COURT OF APPEALS
, “Northrop refers to the original monuments—the stakes in the ground in this case—and directs the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=76341 - 2012-01-09
, “Northrop refers to the original monuments—the stakes in the ground in this case—and directs the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=76341 - 2012-01-09
COURT OF APPEALS
court is authorized “to overrule, modify or withdraw language from a previous supreme court case”). We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52592 - 2010-07-26
court is authorized “to overrule, modify or withdraw language from a previous supreme court case”). We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52592 - 2010-07-26
COURT OF APPEALS
. May 23, 2007) (Sabol II). The supreme court denied the petitions for review in both cases. ¶3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34970 - 2008-12-22
. May 23, 2007) (Sabol II). The supreme court denied the petitions for review in both cases. ¶3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34970 - 2008-12-22
COURT OF APPEALS
is for a November 1992 burglary conviction. In that case, the court imposed and stayed a sentence of six and one
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31330 - 2007-12-26
is for a November 1992 burglary conviction. In that case, the court imposed and stayed a sentence of six and one
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31330 - 2007-12-26
COURT OF APPEALS
. Although Hoeller has argued the merits of his case, we affirm the circuit court’s decision denying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=144396 - 2015-07-14
. Although Hoeller has argued the merits of his case, we affirm the circuit court’s decision denying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=144396 - 2015-07-14
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 28, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32812 - 2008-05-27
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 28, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32812 - 2008-05-27
COURT OF APPEALS
court would have recognized an action for reformation on the grounds asserted in the present case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84795 - 2012-07-11
court would have recognized an action for reformation on the grounds asserted in the present case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84795 - 2012-07-11
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED June 26, 2012 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84078 - 2012-06-25
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED June 26, 2012 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84078 - 2012-06-25
COURT OF APPEALS
for case No. 2010AP563-CR. By an order dated April 29, 2010, this court determined that the notice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=63471 - 2012-02-19
for case No. 2010AP563-CR. By an order dated April 29, 2010, this court determined that the notice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=63471 - 2012-02-19
COURT OF APPEALS
improper. Singly or together, they do not make this an “exceptional case.” By the Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59410 - 2011-02-01
improper. Singly or together, they do not make this an “exceptional case.” By the Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59410 - 2011-02-01