Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 39861 - 39870 of 58277 for speedy trial.

[PDF] CA Blank Order
(1984). It is well established that if the unfiled motion would have been unsuccessful, trial counsel
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=189232 - 2017-09-21

Martin G. Wenke v. Gehl Company
. of Milwaukee for Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers. 2003 WI App 189 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4444 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Lori Ruff and Kevin G. Ruff v. Evelyn Graziano
judgment using the same methodology as the trial court. See M & I First Nat’l Bank v. Episcopal Homes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12606 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Winnebago County v. Mark S. Lisiecki
concentration. A trial to the bench was held on November 1, 2001. Two witnesses testified on behalf
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4800 - 2017-09-20

Certification
to us that if we agree with the trial court that Spaeth’s statement to police was not compelled, then we
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58252 - 2010-12-28

Dane County Department of Human Services v. Reinaldo R.P.
to his six-year-old son, who is also named Reinaldo.[2] Reinaldo claims that the trial court erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3666 - 2005-03-31

Town of Grand Chute v. U.S. Paper Converters, Inc.
that the road be removed upon completion of a public road on USPC’s property. The Town contends that the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14560 - 2005-03-31

Latisha N. Greene v. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin
.[1] General Casualty filed a motion for summary judgment contesting coverage. The trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11389 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Stainless Steel Fabricating, Inc. v. Roy Aitchison
. The trial court granted the motion and issued the requested declaration. We reversed, concluding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13959 - 2014-09-15

COURT OF APPEALS
is unenforceable. We reverse the trial court’s order. ¶2 The undisputed facts are these. D & D has
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32726 - 2008-05-20