Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3971 - 3980 of 6253 for cf.

COURT OF APPEALS
); cf. D'Amico v. City of New York, 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir. 1998) (“The non-moving party may not rely
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=86571 - 2012-08-29

[PDF] Malcolm Stack v. Kelly Joesten
. Cf. Karr, 787 F.2d at 1207 (detective's surveillance work benefited both the detective agency
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8614 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
by telephone. Cf. id., 2010 WI 83, ¶46, 327 Wis. 2d at 419, 786 N.W.2d at 443. His approach allowed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=79066 - 2014-09-15

State v. Joseph L. Smet
of these restricted controlled substances is reasonably and rationally related to public safety. Cf. Wis. Stat
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20191 - 2006-01-09

WI app 117 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2012AP2049-CR Complete Titl...
an evidentiary hearing that would either confirm or rebut the prosecutor’s assertion. Cf. id., 2009 WI 21, ¶82
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102930 - 2013-10-29

[PDF] Alonzo R. Gimenez, M.D. v. State of Wisconsin Medical Examining Board
a minimally competent physician would have proceeded.” Cf. Gilbert, 119 Wis.2d at 205, 349 N.W.2d at 84
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9927 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] WI APP 160
proceedings for review and modification of guardianships); cf. Sanders, 310 Wis. 2d 175, ¶26 (explaining
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=73604 - 2014-09-15

Cheryl D. v. Robert D.B.
threats of harm;[7] and he was not an authority figure on whom she was dependent.[8] Cf. Hammer, 142 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10130 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Richard Winters v. Gerald Berge
in the petition to determine if they would entitle the petitioner to relief if they are true, cf. State ex rel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3924 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
“by the search and seizure in question.” Id., ¶37; cf. 6 WAYNE R. LAFAVE, SEARCH & SEIZURE § 11.2(b) (6th ed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=298202 - 2020-10-22