Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 34831 - 34840 of 82997 for case codes/1000.
Search results 34831 - 34840 of 82997 for case codes/1000.
Frontsheet
2012 WI 101 Supreme Court of Wisconsin Case No.: 2011AP2736-D Complete Title
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85146 - 2012-07-18
2012 WI 101 Supreme Court of Wisconsin Case No.: 2011AP2736-D Complete Title
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85146 - 2012-07-18
State v. Paul E. Kimmes
v. Smith, 122 Wis.2d 431, 434, 362 N.W.2d 439, 441 (Ct. App. 1984), a case with identical facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13129 - 2005-03-31
v. Smith, 122 Wis.2d 431, 434, 362 N.W.2d 439, 441 (Ct. App. 1984), a case with identical facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13129 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. No. 2020AP444 2 review of the briefs and the record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=523845 - 2022-05-24
. No. 2020AP444 2 review of the briefs and the record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=523845 - 2022-05-24
[PDF]
NOTICE
. BACKGROUND ¶2 In Rock County Circuit Court Case No. 2006CF906, an information charged Garrett
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38153 - 2014-09-15
. BACKGROUND ¶2 In Rock County Circuit Court Case No. 2006CF906, an information charged Garrett
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38153 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
a motion for summary judgment and summary judgment motions are not permitted in traffic forfeiture cases
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=76321 - 2014-09-15
a motion for summary judgment and summary judgment motions are not permitted in traffic forfeiture cases
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=76321 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
recognize that the amount of explanation needed for a sentencing decision varies from case to case. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=48771 - 2014-09-15
recognize that the amount of explanation needed for a sentencing decision varies from case to case. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=48771 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
County of Dane v. Steven Spring
intoxicated. This is not a case, as in Swanson, where the only facts known to the arresting officer were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10738 - 2017-09-20
intoxicated. This is not a case, as in Swanson, where the only facts known to the arresting officer were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10738 - 2017-09-20
COURT OF APPEALS
Joiner, though all of the defendants in that case were ultimately dismissed. ¶3 In August 2006
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103484 - 2013-10-28
Joiner, though all of the defendants in that case were ultimately dismissed. ¶3 In August 2006
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103484 - 2013-10-28
[PDF]
State v. Latasha J.
then adjourned the case until September 5, 2002, so that Latasha could speak with her attorney and decide how
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6060 - 2017-09-19
then adjourned the case until September 5, 2002, so that Latasha could speak with her attorney and decide how
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6060 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Latasha J.
then adjourned the case until September 5, 2002, so that Latasha could speak with her attorney and decide how
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6058 - 2017-09-19
then adjourned the case until September 5, 2002, so that Latasha could speak with her attorney and decide how
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6058 - 2017-09-19