Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 37271 - 37280 of 50524 for our.
Search results 37271 - 37280 of 50524 for our.
[PDF]
WI APP 105
to the supreme court. The supreme court refused our certification. Discussion ¶5 As noted, the State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33171 - 2014-09-15
to the supreme court. The supreme court refused our certification. Discussion ¶5 As noted, the State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33171 - 2014-09-15
CA Blank Order
.”). There is no arguably meritorious challenge to the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion. Our review of the record
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102447 - 2013-10-01
.”). There is no arguably meritorious challenge to the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion. Our review of the record
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102447 - 2013-10-01
Frontsheet
report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).[1] Upon our independent review of the record, we approve and adopt
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=54058 - 2010-09-02
report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).[1] Upon our independent review of the record, we approve and adopt
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=54058 - 2010-09-02
COURT OF APPEALS
Our independent review of Reese’s factual allegation regarding his unawareness that no appeal had been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35582 - 2009-02-17
Our independent review of Reese’s factual allegation regarding his unawareness that no appeal had been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35582 - 2009-02-17
2009 WI 17
to search for documents that might have been obtained though normal discovery practices. Our decision
/sc/dispord/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35596 - 2009-02-17
to search for documents that might have been obtained though normal discovery practices. Our decision
/sc/dispord/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35596 - 2009-02-17
State v. Anthony J. Rychtik
, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997). Our supreme court has acknowledged the importance of a presentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4661 - 2005-03-31
, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997). Our supreme court has acknowledged the importance of a presentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4661 - 2005-03-31
State v. Richard C. Devereux
constituted only cumulative evidence, and counsel’s failure to present the report does not undermine our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4554 - 2005-03-31
constituted only cumulative evidence, and counsel’s failure to present the report does not undermine our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4554 - 2005-03-31
State v. William R. Severson
will limit our discussion to those facts probative of whether Sergeant Shriver had a reasonable suspicion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6029 - 2005-03-31
will limit our discussion to those facts probative of whether Sergeant Shriver had a reasonable suspicion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6029 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
758, 773, 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999). ¶14 Turning to the circuit court’s sentencing decision, our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=241557 - 2019-06-05
758, 773, 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999). ¶14 Turning to the circuit court’s sentencing decision, our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=241557 - 2019-06-05
[PDF]
NOTICE
is a possibility which is sufficient to undermine our confidence in the outcome. See id. ¶11 As noted above
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31137 - 2014-09-15
is a possibility which is sufficient to undermine our confidence in the outcome. See id. ¶11 As noted above
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31137 - 2014-09-15