Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 40671 - 40680 of 44730 for part.
Search results 40671 - 40680 of 44730 for part.
State v. Michael Evans
of Trial Counsel 1. Standard of Review ¶7 Wisconsin applies the two-part test
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2677 - 2005-03-31
of Trial Counsel 1. Standard of Review ¶7 Wisconsin applies the two-part test
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2677 - 2005-03-31
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Susan L. Schuster
of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance." [3] Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provided in pertinent part
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21692 - 2006-03-06
of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance." [3] Former SCR 20:1.15(a) provided in pertinent part
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21692 - 2006-03-06
William F. Kelsey v. Jens Otto Luebow
and legally sound. In large part, Luebow’s case amounts to an assertion that he should somehow be excused
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11864 - 2005-03-31
and legally sound. In large part, Luebow’s case amounts to an assertion that he should somehow be excused
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11864 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
was part of a rational plan for Jacob’s defense and therefore did not constitute ineffective assistance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45233 - 2010-01-05
was part of a rational plan for Jacob’s defense and therefore did not constitute ineffective assistance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45233 - 2010-01-05
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
. Anderson received a “substantial sentence[,]” and this court determined that sentence was based in part
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1073044 - 2026-02-04
. Anderson received a “substantial sentence[,]” and this court determined that sentence was based in part
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1073044 - 2026-02-04
State v. John A. Scheiber
, in pertinent part: (2) Any person violating s. 346.63 (1): …. (c) Except as provided in par. (f
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14467 - 2005-03-31
, in pertinent part: (2) Any person violating s. 346.63 (1): …. (c) Except as provided in par. (f
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14467 - 2005-03-31
State v. Kevin Ryan
will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5. [1] Wis. Stat. § 971.165, in pertinent part
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14519 - 2005-03-31
will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5. [1] Wis. Stat. § 971.165, in pertinent part
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14519 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
WI App 6
a meaningful determination of the defendant’s ability to pay, restitution loses a large part of its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=887699 - 2025-02-12
a meaningful determination of the defendant’s ability to pay, restitution loses a large part of its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=887699 - 2025-02-12
Rock County Department of Human Services v. Yolanda M.
. Stat. § 48.01(1)(a), which reads, in part: The courts and agencies responsible for child welfare
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5953 - 2005-03-31
. Stat. § 48.01(1)(a), which reads, in part: The courts and agencies responsible for child welfare
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5953 - 2005-03-31
Darrell W. Griffin v. Jon E. Litscher
) were a part of Wisconsin’s sentencing scheme. This distinction between “confinement” and “sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5409 - 2005-03-31
) were a part of Wisconsin’s sentencing scheme. This distinction between “confinement” and “sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5409 - 2005-03-31