Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 35591 - 35600 of 58510 for speedy trial.

Charles Terry and Angel Terry v. Rock County Board of Adjustment
) appeal from an order dismissing their petition for certiorari review.[1] The trial court concluded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15290 - 2005-03-31

Ellen M. Kahler v. Rural Mutual Insurance Company
injured person limit of liability. The trial court concluded that the omnibus insurance statute, Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7162 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
. The “trade terms” were not specified in writing and Dye did not testify at trial, so no evidence was adduced
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32252 - 2008-03-26

[PDF] CA Blank Order
to any issue that could be raised on appeal. After a jury trial, Bob was convicted of one count
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=481501 - 2022-02-09

[PDF] Ellen M. Kahler v. Rural Mutual Insurance Company
of liability. The trial court No. 03-3396 2 concluded that the omnibus insurance statute, WIS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7162 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] Appeal No. 2007AP964-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2006CM354
declined to adopt a rule that “when a trial court anticipates that it will exceed the sentence
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32324 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] NOTICE
at sentencing, and he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because trial counsel did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=48820 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Supreme Court rule petition 18-03 supporting memo
. The trial court struck the late answer, denied the motion to enlarge time, and entered an order
/supreme/docs/1803memo.pdf - 2018-04-05

[PDF] Oral Argument Synopses - November 2010
, the defendant asks the Supreme Court to review whether a new trial must be held in the interest of justice
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=56270 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Joel R. Zarnke
, contrary to § 948.05(1)(c), STATS. The trial court concluded that § 948.05 was unconstitutional
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12596 - 2017-09-21