Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3801 - 3810 of 65178 for or b.

[PDF] Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund v. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Inc.
S. Skilton and Michael B. Van Sciklen of Foley & Lardner, of Madison. There was oral argument
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15541 - 2017-09-21

State v. Shawn R. Lee
that § 971.14(4)(b), Stats., gives the burden of proof to the participant who is seeking to disprove
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13055 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
years of imprisonment. WIS. STAT. §§ 939.50(3)(b) and (g), 940.225(3)(a), 948.02(2). ¶6 The State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1040888 - 2025-11-25

State v. Thomas W. Pfeifer
of age, in violation of §§ 346.63(1)(b) and 346.65(c) and (f), Stats., create an irrebuttable mandatory
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14466 - 2005-03-31

Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund v. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Inc.
on the briefs of John S. Skilton and Michael B. Van Sciklen of Foley & Lardner, of Madison. There was oral
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15541 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Darrell Harding v. Parmod Kumar
- PARTY PLAINTIFF-COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT-CROSS-APPELLANT,† V. BSTV, INC., D/B
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15822 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] John O. Norquist v. Cate Zeuske
to challenge the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2r), (2) whether §§ 70.329(2r)(a) and (b) violate
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17126 - 2017-09-21

Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Company
: JOHN B. MURPHY so indicate) JUDGES
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10173 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Shawn R. Lee
to the Hurlbut report and Lee’s hospital records. It concluded that § 971.14(4)(b), STATS., gives the burden
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13055 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
)(a)2.b and § 51.20(1)(a)2.e, respectively. ¶7 D.E.S.’s counsel then argued that the County
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=559253 - 2022-08-31