Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 37381 - 37390 of 65155 for or b.

State v. Damiyen S. Coley
. By the Court.—Judgment and order reversed. This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2859 - 2005-03-31

Milwaukee Police Association v. Arthur Jones
, in an October 28, 1997 letter, requested a written response, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(b) (1995-96),[4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14924 - 2006-11-20

Housing Horizons, LLC v. The Alexander Company, Inc.
were carried on within this state by or on the behalf of the defendant, or (b) Products
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14926 - 2006-11-20

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
. STAT. § 48.23(2)(b). This right includes the guarantee of “effective counsel.” A.S. v. State, 168
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=981589 - 2025-07-10

Edward A. Hinrichs v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
in underinsured motorist coverage. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. B
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2720 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Steve Berington v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Co.
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 193, comments b and c (1971). The indemnity clause is analogous
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10045 - 2017-09-19

State v. Montgomery P. Avant
was raised and addressed in his direct appeal. B. Avant’s attorney was deficient for failing to timely raise
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6224 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
that it is barred by the three-year statute of limitations. See Wis. Stat. § 100.18(11)(b)3. ¶23 We need
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33688 - 2008-08-12

COURT OF APPEALS
he was getting repetitive.” This is proper. See Wis. Stat. § 906.11(1)(b) (2011-12); see also
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107272 - 2014-07-23

Racine County Human Services Department v. Lakisha G.
reasons: (a) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (b) Newly-discovered
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7013 - 2005-03-31