Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 41311 - 41320 of 82889 for case codes/1000.
Search results 41311 - 41320 of 82889 for case codes/1000.
State v. John A. Jipson
2003 WI App 222 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 03-0866-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6335 - 2005-03-31
2003 WI App 222 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 03-0866-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6335 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. 1 We granted leave to appeal the order that is being appealed in this case. See WIS. STAT. RULE
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=93422 - 2014-09-15
. 1 We granted leave to appeal the order that is being appealed in this case. See WIS. STAT. RULE
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=93422 - 2014-09-15
Ronnie Prophet v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Inc.
2000 WI App 171 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15296 - 2005-03-31
2000 WI App 171 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15296 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
as other damages, out-of- pocket expenses, and medical expenses. ¶4 Immediately upon calling the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=235525 - 2019-03-01
as other damages, out-of- pocket expenses, and medical expenses. ¶4 Immediately upon calling the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=235525 - 2019-03-01
COURT OF APPEALS
reject Janiak’s arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 This is the second appeal in Janiak’s case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=54895 - 2010-09-27
reject Janiak’s arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 This is the second appeal in Janiak’s case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=54895 - 2010-09-27
[PDF]
State v. Joseph W.D., Sr.
a court order, noted that “he has been nothing more than an obstructionist in this case.” ¶4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3570 - 2017-09-19
a court order, noted that “he has been nothing more than an obstructionist in this case.” ¶4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3570 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
, choosing “not to further victimize these victims here by taking these cases to trial.” She also noted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85521 - 2012-07-30
, choosing “not to further victimize these victims here by taking these cases to trial.” She also noted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85521 - 2012-07-30
[PDF]
Mary G. Sevcik v. Secura Insurance Company
in a misleading manner. They claim that the legislature never intended to change case law holding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2880 - 2017-09-19
in a misleading manner. They claim that the legislature never intended to change case law holding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2880 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
revocation sentences, and the court had ordered the sentence in this case to be served consecutively to any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1014213 - 2025-09-24
revocation sentences, and the court had ordered the sentence in this case to be served consecutively to any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1014213 - 2025-09-24
State v. Jeffrey L. Mosley
PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9058 - 2005-03-31
PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9058 - 2005-03-31