Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3541 - 3550 of 72987 for we.
Search results 3541 - 3550 of 72987 for we.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) supplied the photograph. In a previous appeal, we reversed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=995220 - 2025-08-12
that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) supplied the photograph. In a previous appeal, we reversed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=995220 - 2025-08-12
[PDF]
State v. Jason J. Trawitzki
witnesses. We reject Trawitzki’s arguments and affirm the appealed judgment and order. BACKGROUND
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15917 - 2017-09-21
witnesses. We reject Trawitzki’s arguments and affirm the appealed judgment and order. BACKGROUND
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15917 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Gerald Kasian
) that No. 96-1603-CR -2- probable cause did not support Kasian's arrest. We uphold the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10916 - 2017-09-20
) that No. 96-1603-CR -2- probable cause did not support Kasian's arrest. We uphold the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10916 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
2 response, the supplemental reports, and an independent review of the record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=787980 - 2024-04-11
2 response, the supplemental reports, and an independent review of the record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=787980 - 2024-04-11
COURT OF APPEALS
erroneously exercised it discretion at sentencing. We reject Toliver’s arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=94978 - 2013-04-03
erroneously exercised it discretion at sentencing. We reject Toliver’s arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=94978 - 2013-04-03
[PDF]
State v. Bernard G. Tainter
to ch. 980 violate equal protection. We determine issues one and two are controlled by our supreme
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4441 - 2017-09-19
to ch. 980 violate equal protection. We determine issues one and two are controlled by our supreme
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4441 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
WI APP 151
an evidentiary hearing; and (3) the trial court’s decision was an erroneous exercise of its discretion. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34120 - 2014-09-15
an evidentiary hearing; and (3) the trial court’s decision was an erroneous exercise of its discretion. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34120 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the circuit court erroneously excluded evidence at trial. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=210103 - 2018-04-18
the circuit court erroneously excluded evidence at trial. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=210103 - 2018-04-18
State v. Timothy L. Demmer
finding that he was “in custody” for purposes of the in-custody element of the escape statute. As we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21511 - 2006-02-22
finding that he was “in custody” for purposes of the in-custody element of the escape statute. As we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21511 - 2006-02-22
Roger D. H. v. Virginia O.
non-parental visitation. ¶2 We conclude that the circuit court erred when it determined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3368 - 2005-03-31
non-parental visitation. ¶2 We conclude that the circuit court erred when it determined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3368 - 2005-03-31