Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 36761 - 36770 of 76888 for judgment for u s.
Search results 36761 - 36770 of 76888 for judgment for u s.
State v. Michael Brandt
. APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Kenosha County: S. Michael wilk, Judge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12516 - 2005-03-31
. APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Kenosha County: S. Michael wilk, Judge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12516 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Dwayne G. Thomas v. David M. Schwarz
: LEE S. DREYFUS, JR., Judge. Affirmed. Before Anderson, P.J., Brown and Nettesheim, JJ. ¶1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18649 - 2017-09-21
: LEE S. DREYFUS, JR., Judge. Affirmed. Before Anderson, P.J., Brown and Nettesheim, JJ. ¶1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18649 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
an issue to arbitration, they have agreed to be bound by the arbitrator’s judgment, whether it is correct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=582728 - 2022-10-27
an issue to arbitration, they have agreed to be bound by the arbitrator’s judgment, whether it is correct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=582728 - 2022-10-27
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. ZACHARY S. FRIEDLANDER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=211010 - 2018-04-12
, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. ZACHARY S. FRIEDLANDER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=211010 - 2018-04-12
COURT OF APPEALS
judgment, arguing that there was no evidence of dedication to the Village. After the Village conceded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=57087 - 2010-11-23
judgment, arguing that there was no evidence of dedication to the Village. After the Village conceded
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=57087 - 2010-11-23
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the same issues as those determined in the order or judgment sought to be reconsidered.” Silverton
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=963128 - 2025-06-03
the same issues as those determined in the order or judgment sought to be reconsidered.” Silverton
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=963128 - 2025-06-03
[PDF]
Frontsheet
and the OLR moved for summary judgment. The OLR claimed it was entitled to summary judgment because
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=205997 - 2018-01-30
and the OLR moved for summary judgment. The OLR claimed it was entitled to summary judgment because
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=205997 - 2018-01-30
[PDF]
Certification
court, on the defendant’s motion, “shall vacate any applicable judgment against the defendant
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=133320 - 2017-09-21
court, on the defendant’s motion, “shall vacate any applicable judgment against the defendant
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=133320 - 2017-09-21
State v. Joseph K. Bryant
-Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Kenosha County
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2377 - 2005-03-31
-Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Kenosha County
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2377 - 2005-03-31
State v. Gregory N. Olson
on probation for ten years, beginning November 13, 1987. In 1988, the court amended Olson's original judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13544 - 2005-03-31
on probation for ten years, beginning November 13, 1987. In 1988, the court amended Olson's original judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13544 - 2005-03-31