Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3821 - 3830 of 69908 for his.

[PDF] CA Blank Order
Utecht, pro se, appeals a circuit court order denying his postconviction motion brought pursuant to WIS
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=667351 - 2023-06-15

[PDF] CA Blank Order
denying his postconviction motion brought under WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2019-20).1 Upon our review
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=348785 - 2021-03-30

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 5, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of A...
court’s denial of his motion for sentence modification, ostensibly filed under Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27313 - 2006-12-04

State v. Clinton N. Mansker
, seven and twelve years old, and one count of exposing his genitals to a ten-year-old child. He also
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12052 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Frontsheet
, that various conditions be imposed on his license to practice law, and that he pay the full costs
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107501 - 2017-09-21

Frontsheet
in Wisconsin be suspended for 90 days, that various conditions be imposed on his license to practice law
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=107501 - 2014-01-28

State v. Robert Lewis Flynn
a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief.[1] He argues that he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21222 - 2006-02-06

[PDF] State v. Robert Lewis Flynn
from a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. 1 He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21222 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] WI APP 149
testimony; and (2) ordered damages. Because we conclude that Peters waived1 his evidentiary arguments
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=71246 - 2014-09-15

WI App 149 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2010AP002135 Complete Tit...
testimony; and (2) ordered damages. Because we conclude that Peters waived[1] his evidentiary arguments
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71246 - 2011-11-28