Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 37411 - 37420 of 84004 for simple case search.
Search results 37411 - 37420 of 84004 for simple case search.
State v. Michael J. Jordan
mistrial motion was based on the prosecutor’s contention that she could not put on a rebuttal case because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6508 - 2005-03-31
mistrial motion was based on the prosecutor’s contention that she could not put on a rebuttal case because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6508 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Chris C. Lichtenberg
(citing Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651 (1992)). In a misdemeanor case in Wisconsin, our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5602 - 2017-09-19
(citing Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651 (1992)). In a misdemeanor case in Wisconsin, our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5602 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
County of Dodge v. Curtis E. Dittberner
that under the facts of this case his detention by the use of physical force was an arrest. However
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16167 - 2017-09-21
that under the facts of this case his detention by the use of physical force was an arrest. However
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16167 - 2017-09-21
State v. Charles L. Davies
. In this case, Davies’s only allegations were that Judge Schroeder was biased against him because he had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16334 - 2005-03-31
. In this case, Davies’s only allegations were that Judge Schroeder was biased against him because he had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16334 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that the court could: “generally tell the jury not to make any comments about the case”; directly question
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=454291 - 2021-11-23
that the court could: “generally tell the jury not to make any comments about the case”; directly question
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=454291 - 2021-11-23
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. The jury returned verdicts in favor of the County on both grounds and the case proceeded to disposition
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=625286 - 2023-02-23
. The jury returned verdicts in favor of the County on both grounds and the case proceeded to disposition
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=625286 - 2023-02-23
Mid-State Contracting, Inc. v. Superior Floor Company, Inc.
2002 WI App 257 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 02-0761-FT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5060 - 2005-03-31
2002 WI App 257 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 02-0761-FT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5060 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
in this case relate to the admissibility of expert testimony and the plain error doctrine. ¶4 WISCONSIN
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27166 - 2014-09-15
in this case relate to the admissibility of expert testimony and the plain error doctrine. ¶4 WISCONSIN
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27166 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
are that there was no final order in this case, and that the circuit court erroneously required him to pay three-fourths
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145111 - 2017-09-21
are that there was no final order in this case, and that the circuit court erroneously required him to pay three-fourths
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145111 - 2017-09-21
Kenneth J. Yorgan v. Thomas W. Durkin
judgment. Wis. Stat. § 802.08(3). While evidentiary affidavits were not filed, in this case, our review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7528 - 2005-03-31
judgment. Wis. Stat. § 802.08(3). While evidentiary affidavits were not filed, in this case, our review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7528 - 2005-03-31