Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 40941 - 40950 of 63788 for Motion for joint custody.
Search results 40941 - 40950 of 63788 for Motion for joint custody.
State v. Gregory L. Shade
. § 948.025(1) (1999-2000),[1] and from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4684 - 2005-03-31
. § 948.025(1) (1999-2000),[1] and from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4684 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Jason E. Braasch
appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He argues that it was error
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4411 - 2017-09-19
appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He argues that it was error
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4411 - 2017-09-19
Thomas J. Pionke v. Town of Dayton
jurisdiction to hear the taxpayers’ motion to reduce the assessment following an earlier remand; and (2) erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13972 - 2005-03-31
jurisdiction to hear the taxpayers’ motion to reduce the assessment following an earlier remand; and (2) erred
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13972 - 2005-03-31
Apex Electronics Corporation v. James Gee
Court for Racine County, Wayne J. Marik, Judge. The circuit court denied the motion of the defendant
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17210 - 2005-03-31
Court for Racine County, Wayne J. Marik, Judge. The circuit court denied the motion of the defendant
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17210 - 2005-03-31
Timothy Brown and Katharine Brown v. Dane County
. The Browns assert that the County’s motion cannot properly be granted because the County submitted virtually
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3577 - 2005-03-31
. The Browns assert that the County’s motion cannot properly be granted because the County submitted virtually
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3577 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
damages.1 They claim the circuit court properly denied the Skrzypchaks’ motion for a new trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35265 - 2014-09-15
damages.1 They claim the circuit court properly denied the Skrzypchaks’ motion for a new trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35265 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. David A. Porth, Sr.
SNYDER, J. The State appeals from a trial court order granting David A. Porth, Sr.’s motion for a new
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4539 - 2017-09-20
SNYDER, J. The State appeals from a trial court order granting David A. Porth, Sr.’s motion for a new
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4539 - 2017-09-20
State v. Marquis O. Gilliam
a single issue: whether the circuit court erred in denying defense counsel’s motion to remove a juror
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15512 - 2005-03-31
a single issue: whether the circuit court erred in denying defense counsel’s motion to remove a juror
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15512 - 2005-03-31
State v. Michael Thompson
denying his postconviction motion for a new trial. Thompson contends that three witnesses were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2281 - 2005-03-31
denying his postconviction motion for a new trial. Thompson contends that three witnesses were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2281 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
a post-disposition motion for a new trial pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 809.107(6)(am). We granted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=121672 - 2014-09-15
a post-disposition motion for a new trial pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 809.107(6)(am). We granted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=121672 - 2014-09-15