Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 42601 - 42610 of 83915 for case number.
Search results 42601 - 42610 of 83915 for case number.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
filed a permanency plan, and in June 2020, it filed another such plan in each of the cases. Also
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=745047 - 2023-12-27
filed a permanency plan, and in June 2020, it filed another such plan in each of the cases. Also
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=745047 - 2023-12-27
Village of Menomonee Falls v. Bryan Preuss
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 98-0384
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13615 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 98-0384
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13615 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Heather M. M.
prosecution agreement No. 01-1407 3 under s. 938.24 (5). In such case statements made
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4002 - 2017-09-20
prosecution agreement No. 01-1407 3 under s. 938.24 (5). In such case statements made
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4002 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
State v. Travis Blanks
Correctional Institution that was transporting him to a court hearing in Dodge County. The case went
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8701 - 2017-09-19
Correctional Institution that was transporting him to a court hearing in Dodge County. The case went
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8701 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. We affirm the order
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=170444 - 2017-09-21
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. We affirm the order
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=170444 - 2017-09-21
State v. Anthony J. Rychtik
the sentencing process was prejudiced is a question of law. Id. at 514-15. ¶11 In this case, Thomas
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4659 - 2005-03-31
the sentencing process was prejudiced is a question of law. Id. at 514-15. ¶11 In this case, Thomas
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4659 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
suspensions was still pending and could not be used against him in the instant case. The court held a motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32021 - 2008-03-11
suspensions was still pending and could not be used against him in the instant case. The court held a motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32021 - 2008-03-11
COURT OF APPEALS
that the court is willing to reopen the case upon presentation of further pleadings does not undermine finality
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56221 - 2010-11-01
that the court is willing to reopen the case upon presentation of further pleadings does not undermine finality
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56221 - 2010-11-01
[PDF]
Margaret Hovey v. Allstate Insurance Company
for the action. On October 26, 1998, Hovey’s attorney did not arrive in the courtroom until after the case had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15197 - 2017-09-21
for the action. On October 26, 1998, Hovey’s attorney did not arrive in the courtroom until after the case had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15197 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
J. VanNatta, pro se, appeals a postjudgment order in this divorce case. VanNatta contends
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=239046 - 2019-04-11
J. VanNatta, pro se, appeals a postjudgment order in this divorce case. VanNatta contends
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=239046 - 2019-04-11