Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 4101 - 4110 of 72758 for we.
Search results 4101 - 4110 of 72758 for we.
County of Jefferson v. Mark L. Guttenberg
of the stop should have been suppressed. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND The facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12876 - 2005-03-31
of the stop should have been suppressed. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND The facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12876 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=459300 - 2021-12-09
. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=459300 - 2021-12-09
COURT OF APPEALS
admissible impeachment evidence. We affirm. I. Background. ¶2 Milwaukee police arrested Sheriff
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56785 - 2010-11-15
admissible impeachment evidence. We affirm. I. Background. ¶2 Milwaukee police arrested Sheriff
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56785 - 2010-11-15
[PDF]
State v. Daniel L. Raisbeck
to § 943.10(1)(a), STATS., and from an order denying his motion for reconsideration of the first order. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8379 - 2017-09-19
to § 943.10(1)(a), STATS., and from an order denying his motion for reconsideration of the first order. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8379 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and his motion to withdraw his pleas due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm. ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=529907 - 2022-06-08
and his motion to withdraw his pleas due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm. ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=529907 - 2022-06-08
[PDF]
State v. Kurt Gilkes
-CR 2 We reject Gilkes’s attack on the complaint for two reasons. First, we determine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11646 - 2017-09-19
-CR 2 We reject Gilkes’s attack on the complaint for two reasons. First, we determine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11646 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Appeal No. 2006AP974-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2005CF131
. The issues we certify are whether a dog sniff of a vehicle is considered a search under the Wisconsin
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28662 - 2014-09-15
. The issues we certify are whether a dog sniff of a vehicle is considered a search under the Wisconsin
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28662 - 2014-09-15
State v. Frank Machado
motion for sentence modification. We conclude that the majority of the issues raised by Machado
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7858 - 2005-03-31
motion for sentence modification. We conclude that the majority of the issues raised by Machado
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7858 - 2005-03-31
State v. Gary Mahlum
each of the two crimes. He contends that to hold otherwise violates his double jeopardy rights. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14403 - 2005-03-31
each of the two crimes. He contends that to hold otherwise violates his double jeopardy rights. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14403 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
decision on litigation expenses, we affirm that portion of the order. Because, however, the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30425 - 2007-10-01
decision on litigation expenses, we affirm that portion of the order. Because, however, the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30425 - 2007-10-01