Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 35441 - 35450 of 58483 for speedy trial.

Berton D. Sherman v. Don Hagness
. The trial court allowed him the executor's commission computed under § 857.05(2) for his services
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8010 - 2005-03-31

State v. Roger A. Urbick
intoxicated contrary to § 346.63(1)(a), Stats., as a second offense, and the trial court’s order denying his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14964 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. James E. Cole
moved the court to modify his sentence. After a hearing on Cole’s request, the trial court issued
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14805 - 2017-09-21

State v. Alec C. Christensen
BROWN, P.J.[1] This is a review of the trial court’s denial of a suppression of evidence motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2143 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Dawn D. Gendrich v. Michael J. Gendrich
not give a value for her bank accounts. However, at trial Dawn testified that she has no assets of any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15501 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Andrew J. Peterson v. Andrew S. Peterson
to protect Andrew’s right to a jury trial in a traffic matter. ¶3 Attorney Peterson filed a motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6253 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Rachel Myers v. Carrie A. Ryan
& Services, Inc. The issue is whether the trial court properly determined on three of the defendants
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=24561 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] City of Menomonie v. Jeno D. Herman
, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 346.63(1)(a) and 346.63(1)(b). He argues that the trial court erred by denying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4189 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] State v. Robert A. Zimmerlee
, the trial court entered an order on March 12, 2004, denying the motion. Zimmerlee did not appeal from
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=24943 - 2017-09-21

Gil Jensen v. Mary Beschta-Bachman
and counterclaims. 3. The Trial Judge’s Findings of Fact were clearly erroneous. We affirm. ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4865 - 2005-03-31