Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 29991 - 30000 of 98489 for civil court case status online.
Search results 29991 - 30000 of 98489 for civil court case status online.
COURT OF APPEALS
of review in this case. “In deciding an appeal from a circuit court’s order affirming or reversing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78530 - 2012-02-22
of review in this case. “In deciding an appeal from a circuit court’s order affirming or reversing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78530 - 2012-02-22
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 29, 2012 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=80148 - 2012-03-28
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 29, 2012 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=80148 - 2012-03-28
COURT OF APPEALS
the benefit of expert testimony. When confronted with such a case, the trial court may decline to permit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30343 - 2007-09-19
the benefit of expert testimony. When confronted with such a case, the trial court may decline to permit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30343 - 2007-09-19
[PDF]
NOTICE
to the facts of the case, which we do independently from the trial court’s analysis. See State v. Drew, 2007
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36889 - 2014-09-15
to the facts of the case, which we do independently from the trial court’s analysis. See State v. Drew, 2007
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36889 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
. Hansen’s argument is supported by numerous federal court citations, but no Wisconsin cases. This is state
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78727 - 2012-03-13
. Hansen’s argument is supported by numerous federal court citations, but no Wisconsin cases. This is state
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78727 - 2012-03-13
COURT OF APPEALS
), and that Phillip’s substantive due process challenge to the circuit court’s application of § 48.415(10) in this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32775 - 2008-05-21
), and that Phillip’s substantive due process challenge to the circuit court’s application of § 48.415(10) in this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32775 - 2008-05-21
COURT OF APPEALS
are distinguishable. Richey cites several cases for the proposition that a court should not accept a jury’s verdict
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=137606 - 2015-04-08
are distinguishable. Richey cites several cases for the proposition that a court should not accept a jury’s verdict
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=137606 - 2015-04-08
COURT OF APPEALS
was serving on the case. ¶22 The trial court initially indicated it thought Juror 2 could be struck
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88167 - 2012-10-15
was serving on the case. ¶22 The trial court initially indicated it thought Juror 2 could be struck
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88167 - 2012-10-15
[PDF]
Oral Argument Synopses - January 2008
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT CALENDAR AND CASE SYNOPSES January 2008 This calendar includes
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31494 - 2014-09-15
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT CALENDAR AND CASE SYNOPSES January 2008 This calendar includes
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31494 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
that the court is willing to reopen the case upon presentation of further pleadings does not undermine finality
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56221 - 2010-11-01
that the court is willing to reopen the case upon presentation of further pleadings does not undermine finality
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56221 - 2010-11-01