Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 34921 - 34930 of 69439 for as he.
Search results 34921 - 34930 of 69439 for as he.
State v. James L. Creamer
. He filed a postconviction motion under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.30 (1997-98),[1] alleging he had been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15401 - 2005-03-31
. He filed a postconviction motion under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.30 (1997-98),[1] alleging he had been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15401 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
that he understood the agreement. The circuit court addressed whether Lucas knew the penalties he faced
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=94892 - 2013-03-31
that he understood the agreement. The circuit court addressed whether Lucas knew the penalties he faced
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=94892 - 2013-03-31
[PDF]
State v. William F.S.
granddaughter. He argues that the State’s motion to admit other acts evidence was untimely and failed to give
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14548 - 2017-09-21
granddaughter. He argues that the State’s motion to admit other acts evidence was untimely and failed to give
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14548 - 2017-09-21
State v. Vaughn P. Pollard
and was deemed credible by the trial court. State Trooper Block testified that he observed two cars
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5119 - 2005-03-31
and was deemed credible by the trial court. State Trooper Block testified that he observed two cars
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5119 - 2005-03-31
Dennis M. Makeeff v. Eau Claire County
that the County was responsible for Makeeff’s losing control of his motorcycle when he traveled through spilled
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11830 - 2005-03-31
that the County was responsible for Makeeff’s losing control of his motorcycle when he traveled through spilled
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11830 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
their prenuptial agreement. He argues: (1) the court erroneously implicitly allowed Susan to amend the divorce
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88193 - 2012-10-15
their prenuptial agreement. He argues: (1) the court erroneously implicitly allowed Susan to amend the divorce
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88193 - 2012-10-15
State v. Paul N. Streff
modification. He raises a series of arguments challenging the repeater portion of his sentence. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20386 - 2005-11-22
modification. He raises a series of arguments challenging the repeater portion of his sentence. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20386 - 2005-11-22
[PDF]
NOTICE
entered against him and the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29166 - 2014-09-15
entered against him and the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29166 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (2005-06)[1] motion. He claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31767 - 2008-02-11
Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (2005-06)[1] motion. He claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31767 - 2008-02-11
CA Blank Order
a judgment committing him as a sexually violent person under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 (2011-12).[1] He contends
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92837 - 2013-02-19
a judgment committing him as a sexually violent person under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 (2011-12).[1] He contends
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92837 - 2013-02-19