Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 36351 - 36360 of 64027 for records/1000.

State v. Paul J. Stuart
court had John's preliminary hearing testimony read into the record. The defendant was subsequently
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16510 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
of citations, and copies of tax records.” The circuit court granted Labant’s motion to withdraw. ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=79222 - 2012-03-07

State v. Patrick E. Richter
approached the trailer on lot 439. The record does not demonstrate there was immediate or continuous pursuit
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17398 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
revoked Konicek’s pro hac vice admission. The court stated, “When I look at the record, I have
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=135983 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Saint Joseph's Hospital of Marshfield, Inc. v. City of Marshfield
, is puzzling. The record and the parties’ briefs seemingly inform us that this 98% is comprised of 49
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6380 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
sufficient material facts, if the motion presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=217134 - 2018-08-07

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
to residential tenancies). ¶3 The record reflects that the circuit court completely failed to apply WIS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1073615 - 2026-02-09

COURT OF APPEALS
, the court revoked Konicek’s pro hac vice admission. The court stated, “When I look at the record, I have
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=135983 - 2015-02-25

[PDF] State v. Earl L. Murdock
or by statement in open court or under s. 967.08(2)(b), on the record, with the approval of the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15202 - 2017-09-21

Emil E. Jankee v. Clark County
of appeals. FACTS ¶10 The facts in this case are complex, and the record is extensive. The circuit court
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17045 - 2005-03-31