Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 36841 - 36850 of 83161 for case code.
Search results 36841 - 36850 of 83161 for case code.
COURT OF APPEALS
property in a nonmarital cohabitation case. We affirm. ¶2 Fitzgibbon first argues that the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30504 - 2007-10-03
property in a nonmarital cohabitation case. We affirm. ¶2 Fitzgibbon first argues that the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30504 - 2007-10-03
COURT OF APPEALS
dismissal of Arrow Financial Services, LLC’s case against him. Lunemann claims he was entitled to attorney
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36669 - 2009-06-01
dismissal of Arrow Financial Services, LLC’s case against him. Lunemann claims he was entitled to attorney
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36669 - 2009-06-01
State v. Thomas R. Kelso
to the search. Id. at 448, 475 N.W.2d at 153. In this case, Kelso maintains that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8685 - 2005-03-31
to the search. Id. at 448, 475 N.W.2d at 153. In this case, Kelso maintains that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8685 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
’ claims was via a certiorari action in Washington County Circuit Court case No. 2019CV162, which
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=659123 - 2023-05-24
’ claims was via a certiorari action in Washington County Circuit Court case No. 2019CV162, which
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=659123 - 2023-05-24
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
was ineffective for failing to argue to the circuit court that it should have dismissed the case instead
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=206894 - 2018-01-11
was ineffective for failing to argue to the circuit court that it should have dismissed the case instead
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=206894 - 2018-01-11
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21(1) (2019-20).2 We affirm
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=617542 - 2023-02-07
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21(1) (2019-20).2 We affirm
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=617542 - 2023-02-07
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
conclude that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. We agree
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=635289 - 2023-03-21
conclude that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. We agree
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=635289 - 2023-03-21
[PDF]
Rohini Avvaru v. Gerald D. O'Marro
neglect. I. This dental malpractice case was commenced on October 20, 1994, by the filing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11023 - 2017-09-19
neglect. I. This dental malpractice case was commenced on October 20, 1994, by the filing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11023 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, and, as a result, the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence in both cases. We disagree
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=173192 - 2017-09-21
, and, as a result, the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence in both cases. We disagree
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=173192 - 2017-09-21
09AP935 State v. Michael A. Woodford
a motion.” Woodford’s counsel made one last comment, “Your Honor, but the Court—the case law suggests
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=40576 - 2009-09-08
a motion.” Woodford’s counsel made one last comment, “Your Honor, but the Court—the case law suggests
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=40576 - 2009-09-08