Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3501 - 3510 of 4770 for ft.
Search results 3501 - 3510 of 4770 for ft.
[PDF]
WI APP 228
. at 1021. However, the court “le[ft] for another day … the question whether any exceptions exist
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26934 - 2014-09-15
. at 1021. However, the court “le[ft] for another day … the question whether any exceptions exist
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26934 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
County of Walworth v. Dillis V. Allen
of. State v. Allen, No. 01-0381-FT, unpublished slip op., ¶2 (WI App Sept. 19, 2001). (continued
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6199 - 2017-09-19
of. State v. Allen, No. 01-0381-FT, unpublished slip op., ¶2 (WI App Sept. 19, 2001). (continued
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6199 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Winnebago County
: Over 28 years ago [we] dug the channel for future development. [We] allowed 33 ft. for a roadway
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8338 - 2017-09-19
: Over 28 years ago [we] dug the channel for future development. [We] allowed 33 ft. for a roadway
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8338 - 2017-09-19
County of Walworth v. Dillis V. Allen
it has been previously disposed of. State v. Allen, No. 01-0381-FT, unpublished slip op., ¶2 (WI App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6199 - 2005-03-31
it has been previously disposed of. State v. Allen, No. 01-0381-FT, unpublished slip op., ¶2 (WI App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6199 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
County of Walworth v. Dillis V. Allen
of. State v. Allen, No. 01-0381-FT, unpublished slip op., ¶2 (WI App Sept. 19, 2001). (continued
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6198 - 2017-09-19
of. State v. Allen, No. 01-0381-FT, unpublished slip op., ¶2 (WI App Sept. 19, 2001). (continued
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6198 - 2017-09-19
State v. Winnebago County
for future development. [We] allowed 33 ft. for a roadway. Presently the requirements are 50 ft. wide. [We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8338 - 2005-03-31
for future development. [We] allowed 33 ft. for a roadway. Presently the requirements are 50 ft. wide. [We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8338 - 2005-03-31
County of Walworth v. Dillis V. Allen
it has been previously disposed of. State v. Allen, No. 01-0381-FT, unpublished slip op., ¶2 (WI App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6198 - 2005-03-31
it has been previously disposed of. State v. Allen, No. 01-0381-FT, unpublished slip op., ¶2 (WI App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6198 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Disposition table for September & October, 2004
State v. Herring 09/16/04 04-0266-CR State v. Anderson 10/19/04 04-0282-FT Gabel v. Friederick 10/19
/sc/disptab/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=864 - 2017-09-20
State v. Herring 09/16/04 04-0266-CR State v. Anderson 10/19/04 04-0282-FT Gabel v. Friederick 10/19
/sc/disptab/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=864 - 2017-09-20
James R. Welch v. City of Appleton
2003 WI App 133 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 02-3259-FT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5954 - 2005-03-31
2003 WI App 133 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 02-3259-FT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5954 - 2005-03-31
Honeycrest Farms, Inc. v. Brave Harvestore Systems, Inc.
No.: 95-1789-FT †Petition for Review Filed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9292 - 2005-03-31
No.: 95-1789-FT †Petition for Review Filed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9292 - 2005-03-31