Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 38361 - 38370 of 68235 for law.

[PDF] State v. Kenneth P. Sarauer
to believe that the law contrives against him.’” Martinez v. Court of Appeals, 528 U.S. 152, 160 (2000
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6136 - 2017-09-19

Tony D. Walker v. Gary R. McCaughtry
of statutes present questions of law that we review de novo. State ex rel. Steldt v. McCaughtry, 2000 WI App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2640 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] WI APP 151
of law and fact. See State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d 121, 127, 449 N.W.2d 845, 848 (1990). A circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=72340 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] CA Blank Order
53233 Patrick Flanagan Flanagan Law Office, LLC 759 N. Milwaukee St., #215 Milwaukee, WI
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=223913 - 2018-10-22

COURT OF APPEALS
to the effective assistance of counsel presents a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Trawitzki, 2001 WI 77
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36152 - 2009-04-13

[PDF] NOTICE
examination of the facts and relevant law, the trial court concluded, based on the totality of circumstances
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=44227 - 2014-09-15

COURT OF APPEALS
. § 972.11(1)). Whether a search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment, however, is a question of law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93594 - 2013-03-04

COURT OF APPEALS
that the circuit court properly considered the relevant facts and law, and reached a conclusion that a reasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=147385 - 2015-08-31

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 12, 2014 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of A...
: Respectfully, the case law is clear that when three of the elements for undue influence are established
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=127009 - 2014-11-11

COURT OF APPEALS
it was made according to law and because Zaug failed to present “significant contrary evidence.” The court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93008 - 2013-02-18