Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 43821 - 43830 of 82997 for case codes/1000.
Search results 43821 - 43830 of 82997 for case codes/1000.
COURT OF APPEALS
in the collective bargaining agreement apply, and it is undisputed that the District did not in this case invoke
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82296 - 2012-05-09
in the collective bargaining agreement apply, and it is undisputed that the District did not in this case invoke
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82296 - 2012-05-09
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
so I popped her.’” ¶4 The case remained in a trial posture for more than a year. One week
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=215209 - 2018-07-10
so I popped her.’” ¶4 The case remained in a trial posture for more than a year. One week
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=215209 - 2018-07-10
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
was dismissed. ¶13 In the case at hand, Atlantic moved to dismiss, but its motion was denied. Atlantic
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106012 - 2017-09-21
was dismissed. ¶13 In the case at hand, Atlantic moved to dismiss, but its motion was denied. Atlantic
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106012 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Jeffrey W. Holzemer
, 847 (1990). We view the case from counsel's perspective at the time of trial, and the defendant has
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7994 - 2017-09-19
, 847 (1990). We view the case from counsel's perspective at the time of trial, and the defendant has
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7994 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
) (2021-22), we refer to the victim in this case by the pseudonym “Mary.” We refer to Mary’s parents
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=900808 - 2025-01-14
) (2021-22), we refer to the victim in this case by the pseudonym “Mary.” We refer to Mary’s parents
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=900808 - 2025-01-14
[PDF]
Brown County v. Wade H.
.2d at 412. The court concluded that the statute violated due process because it precluded a case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15819 - 2017-09-21
.2d at 412. The court concluded that the statute violated due process because it precluded a case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15819 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI APP 85
2015 WI APP 85 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2014AP2376
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149566 - 2017-09-21
2015 WI APP 85 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2014AP2376
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149566 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI App 206
2007 WI App 206 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2006AP1872
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29972 - 2014-09-15
2007 WI App 206 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2006AP1872
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29972 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
, however, may not merely allege that postconviction counsel was ineffective but must “make the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140200 - 2015-04-20
, however, may not merely allege that postconviction counsel was ineffective but must “make the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140200 - 2015-04-20
COURT OF APPEALS
was not the lynchpin of the State’s case. Instead, the important evidence was Mord’s testimony that he watched her
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31634 - 2008-01-28
was not the lynchpin of the State’s case. Instead, the important evidence was Mord’s testimony that he watched her
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31634 - 2008-01-28