Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 34051 - 34060 of 63759 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 34051 - 34060 of 63759 for Motion for joint custody.
[PDF]
WI App 20
, sitting in its role as the sentencing court, did not have competency to address Williams’ motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=208217 - 2018-04-09
, sitting in its role as the sentencing court, did not have competency to address Williams’ motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=208217 - 2018-04-09
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
is typical for a traffic stop. ¶5 Stib filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained, arguing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=202430 - 2017-11-15
is typical for a traffic stop. ¶5 Stib filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained, arguing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=202430 - 2017-11-15
COURT OF APPEALS
denying his postconviction motion. He contends that because the criminal information and judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=77723 - 2012-02-07
denying his postconviction motion. He contends that because the criminal information and judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=77723 - 2012-02-07
State v. Kyle J. Nelson
suppression motion. We disagree with Nelson and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND ¶2 On February 15
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18180 - 2005-05-16
suppression motion. We disagree with Nelson and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND ¶2 On February 15
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18180 - 2005-05-16
State v. Anthony J. Rychtik
an order denying his motion for sentence modification.[1] Rychtik argues that a diagnosis of his mental
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4661 - 2005-03-31
an order denying his motion for sentence modification.[1] Rychtik argues that a diagnosis of his mental
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4661 - 2005-03-31
State v. Anthony J. Rychtik
an order denying his motion for sentence modification.[1] Rychtik argues that a diagnosis of his mental
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4658 - 2005-03-31
an order denying his motion for sentence modification.[1] Rychtik argues that a diagnosis of his mental
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4658 - 2005-03-31
State v. Anthony J. Rychtik
an order denying his motion for sentence modification.[1] Rychtik argues that a diagnosis of his mental
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4657 - 2005-03-31
an order denying his motion for sentence modification.[1] Rychtik argues that a diagnosis of his mental
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4657 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
as a party to the crime. Scheuers additionally appeals from a trial court order denying his motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=76100 - 2014-09-15
as a party to the crime. Scheuers additionally appeals from a trial court order denying his motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=76100 - 2014-09-15
State v. Timothy White
, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify sentence.[2] We affirm. I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12488 - 2005-03-31
, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify sentence.[2] We affirm. I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12488 - 2005-03-31
State v. Xavier R. Neave
-Appellant. Opinion Filed: July 1, 1998 Submitted on a Motion June 4, 1998 JUDGES
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13324 - 2005-03-31
-Appellant. Opinion Filed: July 1, 1998 Submitted on a Motion June 4, 1998 JUDGES
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13324 - 2005-03-31