Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3321 - 3330 of 63787 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 3321 - 3330 of 63787 for Motion for joint custody.
Clifford Muchow v. Richard Goding
. The trial court denied the motion. Defendants later moved for summary judgment dismissing the Rock County
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7760 - 2005-03-31
. The trial court denied the motion. Defendants later moved for summary judgment dismissing the Rock County
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7760 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Clifford Muchow v. Richard Goding
to Fond du Lac County. The trial court denied the motion. Defendants later moved for summary judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7760 - 2017-09-19
to Fond du Lac County. The trial court denied the motion. Defendants later moved for summary judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7760 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
indicating that an individual has been questioned, apprehended, taken into custody or detention, held
/sc/sccase/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=865501 - 2024-10-18
indicating that an individual has been questioned, apprehended, taken into custody or detention, held
/sc/sccase/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=865501 - 2024-10-18
[PDF]
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
questioned, apprehended, taken into custody or detention, held for investigation, arrested, charged
/sc/sccase/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=865277 - 2024-10-17
questioned, apprehended, taken into custody or detention, held for investigation, arrested, charged
/sc/sccase/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=865277 - 2024-10-17
[PDF]
Daniel R. Zawistowski v. Tammra S. Zawistowski
stipulated to joint legal custody and to a placement schedule that took into account each party’s work
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3696 - 2017-09-19
stipulated to joint legal custody and to a placement schedule that took into account each party’s work
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3696 - 2017-09-19
State v. Murle E. Perkins
“they enforce the monetary part and not anything else,” specifically, his “joint custody and visitation rights
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15777 - 2005-03-31
“they enforce the monetary part and not anything else,” specifically, his “joint custody and visitation rights
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15777 - 2005-03-31
Daniel R. Zawistowski v. Tammra S. Zawistowski
of the divorce. Daniel and Tammra each earned approximately $40,000 annually. The parties stipulated to joint
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3696 - 2005-03-31
of the divorce. Daniel and Tammra each earned approximately $40,000 annually. The parties stipulated to joint
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3696 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Murle E. Perkins
, his “joint custody and visitation rights.” From this, jurors could well conclude that Perkins had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15777 - 2017-09-21
, his “joint custody and visitation rights.” From this, jurors could well conclude that Perkins had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15777 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
is not appropriate given that Daniels is no longer in custody in connection with the sentences he challenges, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98245 - 2013-06-17
is not appropriate given that Daniels is no longer in custody in connection with the sentences he challenges, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98245 - 2013-06-17
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
given that Daniels is no longer in custody in connection with the sentences he challenges, we affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98245 - 2014-09-15
given that Daniels is no longer in custody in connection with the sentences he challenges, we affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98245 - 2014-09-15