Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 30111 - 30120 of 83495 for case code.
Search results 30111 - 30120 of 83495 for case code.
[PDF]
WI APP 31
2011 WI APP 31 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2009AP1881
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59779 - 2014-09-15
2011 WI APP 31 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2009AP1881
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59779 - 2014-09-15
State v. Keith M. Carey
2004 WI App 83 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 03-1578-CR 03-1579
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6583 - 2005-03-31
2004 WI App 83 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 03-1578-CR 03-1579
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6583 - 2005-03-31
State v. Keith M. Carey
2004 WI App 83 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 03-1578-CR 03-1579
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6584 - 2005-03-31
2004 WI App 83 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 03-1578-CR 03-1579
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6584 - 2005-03-31
State v. Keith M. Carey
2004 WI App 83 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 03-1578-CR 03-1579
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6587 - 2005-03-31
2004 WI App 83 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 03-1578-CR 03-1579
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6587 - 2005-03-31
State v. Keith M. Carey
2004 WI App 83 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 03-1578-CR 03-1579
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6586 - 2005-03-31
2004 WI App 83 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 03-1578-CR 03-1579
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6586 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
of Assurance and denying Omegbu’s motions. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Because this case was previously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34675 - 2008-11-24
of Assurance and denying Omegbu’s motions. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Because this case was previously
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34675 - 2008-11-24
COURT OF APPEALS
Hughes’s guilty plea and the case proceeded to sentencing. ¶3 During the sentencing portion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60761 - 2011-03-07
Hughes’s guilty plea and the case proceeded to sentencing. ¶3 During the sentencing portion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60761 - 2011-03-07
COURT OF APPEALS
: (1) erroneously summarized the trial court’s original decision; (2) cited cases that were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=38825 - 2009-08-03
: (1) erroneously summarized the trial court’s original decision; (2) cited cases that were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=38825 - 2009-08-03
COURT OF APPEALS
is insufficient to make this determination and therefore remand the case for additional fact-finding. Statement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30875 - 2007-11-14
is insufficient to make this determination and therefore remand the case for additional fact-finding. Statement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30875 - 2007-11-14
State v. Jeffrey P. Williamson
prosecutorial vindictiveness in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that Williamson
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2731 - 2005-03-31
prosecutorial vindictiveness in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that Williamson
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2731 - 2005-03-31