Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 42051 - 42060 of 83367 for case search.
Search results 42051 - 42060 of 83367 for case search.
State v. Martin Foral
, but remand this case to the trial court for the entry of an order under § 973.09(3)(a), Stats
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12597 - 2005-03-31
, but remand this case to the trial court for the entry of an order under § 973.09(3)(a), Stats
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12597 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
as to the allocation of sentence credit between this case and a companion case—Waukesha County case No. 2018CF1724
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=331173 - 2021-02-03
as to the allocation of sentence credit between this case and a companion case—Waukesha County case No. 2018CF1724
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=331173 - 2021-02-03
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
that is the subject of this appeal has now expired, we address its validity in case it might affect subsequent orders
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=97298 - 2014-09-15
that is the subject of this appeal has now expired, we address its validity in case it might affect subsequent orders
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=97298 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
JD-1735, 11/19 Plea Questionnaire/Waiver of Rights (CHIPS and JIPS) §§48.243, 48.30, 938.243 and 938...
that by entering this plea, I give up the following rights: I give up my right to a court trial in a JIPS case
/formdisplay/JD-1735.pdf?formNumber=JD-1735&formType=Form&formatId=2&language=en - 2020-02-19
that by entering this plea, I give up the following rights: I give up my right to a court trial in a JIPS case
/formdisplay/JD-1735.pdf?formNumber=JD-1735&formType=Form&formatId=2&language=en - 2020-02-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
is entitled to a new trial. Id. at 102. ¶3 In this case, the parties agreed on the jury instructions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=265330 - 2020-07-28
is entitled to a new trial. Id. at 102. ¶3 In this case, the parties agreed on the jury instructions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=265330 - 2020-07-28
[PDF]
NOTICE
. Obriecht contends: (1) the judgment of conviction underlying the probation revocation in this case must
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31167 - 2014-09-15
. Obriecht contends: (1) the judgment of conviction underlying the probation revocation in this case must
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31167 - 2014-09-15
Edward Vanlennep v. Circuit Court for Crawford County
, or additional parties plaintiff or defendant, if a jury demand has been made in any case and if a jury demand
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8095 - 2005-03-31
, or additional parties plaintiff or defendant, if a jury demand has been made in any case and if a jury demand
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8095 - 2005-03-31
State v. Nathan J. Pettigrew
limitations on Pettigrew’s litigation in this case. We conclude that Pettigrew’s motion is procedurally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20106 - 2007-06-04
limitations on Pettigrew’s litigation in this case. We conclude that Pettigrew’s motion is procedurally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20106 - 2007-06-04
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
Graff, pro se, appeals an order that denied his motion for postconviction relief in two criminal cases
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=257977 - 2020-04-14
Graff, pro se, appeals an order that denied his motion for postconviction relief in two criminal cases
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=257977 - 2020-04-14
Marshall Orris v. Nathan F. Brand
., Plaintiff, v. Nathan F. Brand, Frederic E. Mohs, Suzanne H. Case & Richard M. Heins, d/b
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14010 - 2005-03-31
., Plaintiff, v. Nathan F. Brand, Frederic E. Mohs, Suzanne H. Case & Richard M. Heins, d/b
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14010 - 2005-03-31