Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 31261 - 31270 of 38484 for t's.
Search results 31261 - 31270 of 38484 for t's.
State v. Rick L. Edwards
Wisconsin Stat. § 973.09(4)(a) provides in relevant part, “[t]he court may also require as a condition
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6310 - 2005-03-31
Wisconsin Stat. § 973.09(4)(a) provides in relevant part, “[t]he court may also require as a condition
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6310 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
of professionally competent assistance.” Id. at 690. To demonstrate prejudice, “[t]he defendant must show
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=144308 - 2015-07-13
of professionally competent assistance.” Id. at 690. To demonstrate prejudice, “[t]he defendant must show
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=144308 - 2015-07-13
[PDF]
WI APP 96
, ¶42 (emphasis added). The court noted that “[t]he facts underlying the record of a conviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=155665 - 2017-09-21
, ¶42 (emphasis added). The court noted that “[t]he facts underlying the record of a conviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=155665 - 2017-09-21
State v. Kenneth Pringle, Jr.
Outagamie County case came up for sentencing on February 26, 2003, before the Honorable James T. Bayorgeon
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26448 - 2006-09-11
Outagamie County case came up for sentencing on February 26, 2003, before the Honorable James T. Bayorgeon
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26448 - 2006-09-11
COURT OF APPEALS
that suggested he may be armed and dangerous. “[T]he inordinate risk confronting an officer as he [or she
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107212 - 2014-01-27
that suggested he may be armed and dangerous. “[T]he inordinate risk confronting an officer as he [or she
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107212 - 2014-01-27
COURT OF APPEALS
in damage to third-parties.” See id. at 290. They therefore assert, “[I]t follows that an exclusion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=105249 - 2013-12-09
in damage to third-parties.” See id. at 290. They therefore assert, “[I]t follows that an exclusion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=105249 - 2013-12-09
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
). Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals 2019-01-09T07:58:00-0600 CCAP-CDS
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=231771 - 2019-01-09
). Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals 2019-01-09T07:58:00-0600 CCAP-CDS
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=231771 - 2019-01-09
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
in its written decision: Having seen the trial and observed the witnesses, [t]here is no question
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149111 - 2017-09-21
in its written decision: Having seen the trial and observed the witnesses, [t]here is no question
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149111 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Richard A. Brown, Jr.
and definition of the single most important element that the [S]tate was required to prove: [t]he ‘substantial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15233 - 2017-09-21
and definition of the single most important element that the [S]tate was required to prove: [t]he ‘substantial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15233 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
We begin our analysis by discussing Jones’s motion, which stated that “[t]he evidence [he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=89014 - 2014-09-15
We begin our analysis by discussing Jones’s motion, which stated that “[t]he evidence [he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=89014 - 2014-09-15