Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3501 - 3510 of 41688 for jury duty/1000.
Search results 3501 - 3510 of 41688 for jury duty/1000.
Cathy Strozinsky v. School District of Brown Deer
, 113 Wis. 2d 561, 335 N.W.2d 834 (1983). The court applied the doctrine, holding that a jury should
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17365 - 2005-03-31
, 113 Wis. 2d 561, 335 N.W.2d 834 (1983). The court applied the doctrine, holding that a jury should
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17365 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
at issue is $1000. Upon cross-examination, and noting that the graffiti is still present on the subject
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29135 - 2014-09-15
at issue is $1000. Upon cross-examination, and noting that the graffiti is still present on the subject
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29135 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
that similar land in the area had recently sold for $1000 an acre, which would value Douglas’s half at $160,000
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74634 - 2011-11-30
that similar land in the area had recently sold for $1000 an acre, which would value Douglas’s half at $160,000
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74634 - 2011-11-30
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
recently sold for $1000 an acre, which would value Douglas’s half at $160,000. Douglas presented
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=74634 - 2014-09-15
recently sold for $1000 an acre, which would value Douglas’s half at $160,000. Douglas presented
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=74634 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
statement that the cost of abatement of the graffiti at issue is $1000. Upon cross-examination, and noting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29135 - 2007-06-26
statement that the cost of abatement of the graffiti at issue is $1000. Upon cross-examination, and noting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29135 - 2007-06-26
[PDF]
NOTICE
claimed Selmer violated its statutory duty by failing to mark the incline or otherwise make the hazard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34171 - 2014-09-15
claimed Selmer violated its statutory duty by failing to mark the incline or otherwise make the hazard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34171 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
an employee who negligently performs a “ministerial duty[.]” Id. A duty is considered ministerial “only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=672691 - 2023-06-28
an employee who negligently performs a “ministerial duty[.]” Id. A duty is considered ministerial “only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=672691 - 2023-06-28
COURT OF APPEALS
statutory duty by failing to mark the incline or otherwise make the hazard noticeable. Selmer moved
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34171 - 2008-09-29
statutory duty by failing to mark the incline or otherwise make the hazard noticeable. Selmer moved
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34171 - 2008-09-29
WI App 130 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2014AP619-CR Complete Title...
and Kloppenburg, JJ. ¶1 KLOPPENBURG, J. A jury convicted Frank Zdzieblowski of operating a vehicle
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=125788 - 2014-12-18
and Kloppenburg, JJ. ¶1 KLOPPENBURG, J. A jury convicted Frank Zdzieblowski of operating a vehicle
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=125788 - 2014-12-18
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. ¶7 The jury returned a verdict of guilty. At sentencing on October 23, 2023, the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1042669 - 2025-11-26
. ¶7 The jury returned a verdict of guilty. At sentencing on October 23, 2023, the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1042669 - 2025-11-26