Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 33751 - 33760 of 50525 for our.

State v. Roy J. Jones
is pivotal to the analysis, see Barker, 407 U.S. at 531‑32, and weighs strongly in our conclusion that Jones
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13720 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
, or that it is probable that justice has for any reason miscarried[.]” We exercise our discretionary reversal power “only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=73881 - 2011-11-14

COURT OF APPEALS
by the trial court, which is why this portion of our discussion pertains only to Lewis Construction. Under our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34222 - 2008-10-07

COURT OF APPEALS
been employed. ¶5 Sentencing is within the discretion of the circuit court, and our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32620 - 2008-05-05

[PDF] Community Development Authority v. Racine County Condemnation Commission
.2d 769. We therefore conclude that our review is de novo, aided by the analysis of the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21170 - 2017-09-21

National Safety Associates, Inc. v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
, appellants rely on our opinion in Lifedata Medical Servs. v. LIRC, 192 Wis.2d 663, 531 N.W.2d 451 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8923 - 2005-03-31

Bert L. Warnecke, Sr. v. Bert L. Warnecke II
that this interpretation is correct, our determination that § 77.88(2)(f) is directory resolves the case in Bert II’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24663 - 2006-04-25

State v. Robert Bintz
. § 908.045(4). ¶11 This, however, does not end our inquiry. As noted, not all hearsay is admissible
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4454 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Walgreen Co. v. Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board
omitted). 6 We base our deference in this situation more on the agency’s duty to enforce the statute
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12526 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. James A. Genett
different had Kraus testified and our confidence in the outcome of the trial is not undermined. Prior
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12618 - 2017-09-21