Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 30071 - 30080 of 38489 for t's.

State v. Edward D. Lewis
.2d 527, 537 (1984), and “[t]he trial court is presumed to have acted reasonably.” State v. Wickstrom
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3610 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
. Speer, 176 Wis. 2d 1101, 501 N.W.2d 429 (1993) (“[I]t is improper for a court to approach sentencing
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1007609 - 2025-09-11

COURT OF APPEALS
is collectively judged. [5] The Mach factors include “[t]he reasons why the party has not acted sooner
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50145 - 2010-05-17

[PDF] State v. Nicholas D. Kasten
of the presentence investigation, counsel testified further, “[t]he first thing I tell a client is you must show
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7583 - 2017-09-19

Joseph Leitinger v. Van Buren Management
, not the actual charge. In other words “‘[t]his is a recovery for their value and not for the expenditures
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25661 - 2006-07-25

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
Constitution guarantee “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=892290 - 2024-12-26

[PDF] Jeanne M. Lindskog v. Ronald P. Lindskog
cases are “intensively fact specific for each case …. [T]he great burden of reaching a just and fair
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13688 - 2014-09-15

COURT OF APPEALS
decision, agreeing with the State’s position that “[i]t appears … that defendant is raising
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104909 - 2013-11-26

COURT OF APPEALS
the circumstances. Maryland Arms Ltd. P’ship v. Connell, 2010 WI 64, ¶22, 326 Wis. 2d 300, 786 N.W.2d 15.“ [T]he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=81038 - 2012-04-16

[PDF] State v. Edward D. Lewis
.2d 527, 537 (1984), and “[t]he trial court is presumed to have acted reasonably.” State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3610 - 2017-09-19