Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 38761 - 38770 of 69426 for as he.

[PDF] State v. Terry L. Olson
is dangerous because this mental disorder makes it likely that he or she will commit further acts of sexual
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21393 - 2017-09-21

Leon Bunker v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
Bunker ineligible for unemployment compensation (U.C.) benefits during the summer of 1992 because he had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8530 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Deondre J. Kelley
He also appeals from the order denying his request for sentence modification. Kelley argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7423 - 2017-09-20

Lafayette County Department of Human Services v. Stephen J.C.
of protection and services (CHIPS) under Wis. Stat. § 48.13. He claims that: (1) the circuit court erred when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15193 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Leon Bunker v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
for unemployment compensation (U.C.) benefits during the summer of 1992 because he had a "reasonable assurance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8530 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Arlene M. Wolski v. Chris R. Wolski
marriages in setting maintenance. He also argues that the trial court was obligated to consider the first
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10246 - 2017-09-20

Michael P. Rogers v. Cathy Rogers
three children.[1] He argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by failing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3186 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Paul S. Gantner v. Diane Jo Gantner
decision states: [T]he Court has considered the factors set forth in Section 767.26 Wis. Stats
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3809 - 2017-09-20

State v. Matthew T. Doughty
Doughty’s motion to suppress custodial statements he made to police. Doughty was ultimately convicted upon
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6617 - 2005-03-31

Arlene M. Wolski v. Chris R. Wolski
maintenance. He also argues that the trial court was obligated to consider the first marital settlement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10246 - 2005-03-31