Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 29871 - 29880 of 62048 for child support.
Search results 29871 - 29880 of 62048 for child support.
2007 WI 96
of the consequences of his plea, to support his presentence motion for plea withdrawal. He contends that he
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29703 - 2007-07-11
of the consequences of his plea, to support his presentence motion for plea withdrawal. He contends that he
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29703 - 2007-07-11
[PDF]
WI 96
, to support his presentence motion for plea withdrawal. He contends that he misunderstood the consequences
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29703 - 2014-09-15
, to support his presentence motion for plea withdrawal. He contends that he misunderstood the consequences
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29703 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
with a supporting brief, an affidavit signed by McCahey, and an affidavit from her new attorney. After Par filed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=803118 - 2024-05-22
with a supporting brief, an affidavit signed by McCahey, and an affidavit from her new attorney. After Par filed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=803118 - 2024-05-22
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 27, 2007 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court o...
in this regard were not clearly erroneous. There is substantial credible evidence to support the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28568 - 2007-03-26
in this regard were not clearly erroneous. There is substantial credible evidence to support the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28568 - 2007-03-26
State v. Kenosha County Board of Adjustment
that the Board’s decision is unreasonable because it is not supported by the evidence. We reject both
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10761 - 2005-03-31
that the Board’s decision is unreasonable because it is not supported by the evidence. We reject both
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10761 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
WI App 41
and received into evidence, and portions of the video were played. The following undisputed facts supporting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=678496 - 2023-09-21
and received into evidence, and portions of the video were played. The following undisputed facts supporting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=678496 - 2023-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
at the June 24 hearing. The court said that it was “satisfied that there is a factual basis to support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=703208 - 2023-09-14
at the June 24 hearing. The court said that it was “satisfied that there is a factual basis to support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=703208 - 2023-09-14
[PDF]
State v. Steven A. Avery
-discovered evidence are undisputed. In support, Avery cites to the supreme court’s language in State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11594 - 2017-09-19
-discovered evidence are undisputed. In support, Avery cites to the supreme court’s language in State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11594 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
St. Francis Home in the Park v. Department of Health and Family Services
, accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of all documentation necessary to support each claim. See WIS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13846 - 2014-09-15
, accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of all documentation necessary to support each claim. See WIS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13846 - 2014-09-15
Elmer W. Glaeske v. Elwyn M. Shaw
supporting a finding that William intimidated Arthur.[4] ¶15 Other than Bradshaw’s conclusory opinions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6918 - 2005-03-31
supporting a finding that William intimidated Arthur.[4] ¶15 Other than Bradshaw’s conclusory opinions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6918 - 2005-03-31