Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 31221 - 31230 of 36435 for e's.

COURT OF APPEALS
)4. [1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2)(e) (2009-10
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=86109 - 2012-08-14

COURT OF APPEALS
testimony, there is no dispute that the prosecution failed to comply with Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(e
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32195 - 2008-03-25

George T. Stathus v. James H. Horst
in the locality for similar legal services. (d) The amount involved and the results obtained. (e) The time
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2468 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
reflects that those contacts did “not even ris[e] to the level of crimes.” Also unlike Porter, Green
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=233078 - 2019-01-23

[PDF] James Turner. v. David H. Schwarz
wife, a class E felony, in violation of § 940.19(2), STATS., and was convicted and sentenced to one
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13897 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Brian J. Salentine
-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of James E. Doyle, attorney general, and Sharon Ruhly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10122 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Cemetery Services v. The Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing
: On behalf of the defendants-respondents, the cause was submitted on the brief of James E. Doyle, attorney
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12773 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Thomas D. Myers
of professional judgment. Therefore, we need not address this claim further. See State v. Courtney E., 184 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10115 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
.” Further, LMI asserts that [E]ven if the word “event” meant “anything that happened,” as [Superior
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=250389 - 2019-11-19

State v. Tarlon Herron
. E. Interest of Justice. ¶18 Herron next requests this court to reverse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16251 - 2005-03-31