Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 37851 - 37860 of 83366 for case search.
Search results 37851 - 37860 of 83366 for case search.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. No. 2009AP3080-CR 3 ¶4 Trial counsel’s sentencing argument highlighted “positives” in Patterson’s case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=63727 - 2014-09-15
. No. 2009AP3080-CR 3 ¶4 Trial counsel’s sentencing argument highlighted “positives” in Patterson’s case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=63727 - 2014-09-15
2008 WI APP 90
2008 WI App 90 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2007AP1289-CR Complete
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32844 - 2011-06-14
2008 WI App 90 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2007AP1289-CR Complete
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32844 - 2011-06-14
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. Bell’s claims
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=697298 - 2023-08-30
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. Bell’s claims
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=697298 - 2023-08-30
[PDF]
State v. Leroy W. Senn
motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the State’s case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3472 - 2017-09-20
motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the State’s case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3472 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, we agree, and reverse. BACKGROUND ¶2 The relevant facts in this case are undisputed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=516016 - 2022-05-03
, we agree, and reverse. BACKGROUND ¶2 The relevant facts in this case are undisputed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=516016 - 2022-05-03
[PDF]
NOTICE
claim’s viability. We agree. We reverse the judgment and remand this case for further proceedings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32731 - 2014-09-15
claim’s viability. We agree. We reverse the judgment and remand this case for further proceedings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32731 - 2014-09-15
State v. Daniel Anderson
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case Nos.: 96-0087-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10226 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case Nos.: 96-0087-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10226 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Ernest J.P., Jr.
the statute, which does not purport to dictate how the county must prove its case for recommitment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7128 - 2017-09-20
the statute, which does not purport to dictate how the county must prove its case for recommitment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7128 - 2017-09-20
COURT OF APPEALS
deficiency. The court reasoned that, given the facts of the case, there was reasonable suspicion to extend
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103040 - 2013-10-14
deficiency. The court reasoned that, given the facts of the case, there was reasonable suspicion to extend
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103040 - 2013-10-14
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
and Record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=840375 - 2024-08-21
and Record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=840375 - 2024-08-21