Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 36511 - 36520 of 83001 for case codes/1000.
Search results 36511 - 36520 of 83001 for case codes/1000.
[PDF]
State v. James J. Bartow
stated that field sobriety tests need not be done in every case; the purpose is to determine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14097 - 2014-09-15
stated that field sobriety tests need not be done in every case; the purpose is to determine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14097 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
this unjust enrichment action. Concluding that this essentially was a case of “rob[bing] Peter to pay Paul
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=86527 - 2014-09-15
this unjust enrichment action. Concluding that this essentially was a case of “rob[bing] Peter to pay Paul
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=86527 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
and read in fifteen of the seventeen charged crimes arising from three circuit court cases if Buntrock
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=699160 - 2023-09-06
and read in fifteen of the seventeen charged crimes arising from three circuit court cases if Buntrock
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=699160 - 2023-09-06
[PDF]
NOTICE
States Supreme Court cases, Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38434 - 2014-09-15
States Supreme Court cases, Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38434 - 2014-09-15
Frontsheet
2012 WI 123 Supreme Court of Wisconsin Case No.: 2012AP1654-D Complete Title
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90800 - 2012-12-17
2012 WI 123 Supreme Court of Wisconsin Case No.: 2012AP1654-D Complete Title
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90800 - 2012-12-17
[PDF]
NOTICE
and explainable basis” with “delineation of the primary sentencing factors to the particular facts of the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26957 - 2014-09-15
and explainable basis” with “delineation of the primary sentencing factors to the particular facts of the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26957 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
case,” and thus, “remains within the trial court’s discretion.” Id. at 740. ¶5 Immediately
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=42188 - 2009-10-13
case,” and thus, “remains within the trial court’s discretion.” Id. at 740. ¶5 Immediately
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=42188 - 2009-10-13
[PDF]
State v. Matthew S. Olsen
to go through the case with you and look at the weaknesses of the case? [Olsen]: No. [Prosecutor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25922 - 2017-09-21
to go through the case with you and look at the weaknesses of the case? [Olsen]: No. [Prosecutor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25922 - 2017-09-21
CA Blank Order
for postconviction relief. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=118835 - 2005-03-31
for postconviction relief. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=118835 - 2005-03-31
Mark Cimbalnik v. Patricia Guy
paid the jury fee. Before adjourning the case, however, the trial court heard the respective positions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7379 - 2005-03-31
paid the jury fee. Before adjourning the case, however, the trial court heard the respective positions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7379 - 2005-03-31