Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 30721 - 30730 of 98490 for civil court case status online.
Search results 30721 - 30730 of 98490 for civil court case status online.
COURT OF APPEALS
unit located above the Seegers’ unit. The court case proceedings spanned three days, during which
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=48942 - 2010-04-13
unit located above the Seegers’ unit. The court case proceedings spanned three days, during which
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=48942 - 2010-04-13
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 12, 2010 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45687 - 2010-01-11
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 12, 2010 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45687 - 2010-01-11
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 29, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=61909 - 2011-03-28
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 29, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=61909 - 2011-03-28
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 22, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=75597 - 2011-12-21
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 22, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=75597 - 2011-12-21
COURT OF APPEALS
in exceptional cases. Vollmer v. Luety, 156 Wis. 2d 1, 11, 456 N.W.2d 797 (1990). The Wisconsin Supreme Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28816 - 2007-05-01
in exceptional cases. Vollmer v. Luety, 156 Wis. 2d 1, 11, 456 N.W.2d 797 (1990). The Wisconsin Supreme Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28816 - 2007-05-01
COURT OF APPEALS
a prima facie case that the circuit court failed to fulfill its mandatory duties during the plea colloquy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=136995 - 2015-03-09
a prima facie case that the circuit court failed to fulfill its mandatory duties during the plea colloquy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=136995 - 2015-03-09
COURT OF APPEALS
of the case. ¶9 Bentdahl concedes that he “did not expressly raise the issue of whether the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90208 - 2012-12-05
of the case. ¶9 Bentdahl concedes that he “did not expressly raise the issue of whether the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90208 - 2012-12-05
COURT OF APPEALS
at that time.” ¶6 The circuit court observed that it had presided over Crouthers’s case since 1998
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=73388 - 2011-11-07
at that time.” ¶6 The circuit court observed that it had presided over Crouthers’s case since 1998
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=73388 - 2011-11-07
COURT OF APPEALS
the case altogether. The trial court denied the motion. Defense counsel then moved to dismiss Rasmussen
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30451 - 2007-10-01
the case altogether. The trial court denied the motion. Defense counsel then moved to dismiss Rasmussen
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30451 - 2007-10-01
COURT OF APPEALS
that Simmons’s case could go forward that Simmons indicated he had changed his mind. The court held that it had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29408 - 2007-06-18
that Simmons’s case could go forward that Simmons indicated he had changed his mind. The court held that it had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29408 - 2007-06-18