Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 44201 - 44210 of 83001 for case codes/1000.
Search results 44201 - 44210 of 83001 for case codes/1000.
Frontsheet
2008 WI 120 Supreme Court of Wisconsin Case No.: 2007AP2546-D Complete Title
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34283 - 2008-10-13
2008 WI 120 Supreme Court of Wisconsin Case No.: 2007AP2546-D Complete Title
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34283 - 2008-10-13
State v. Douglas T. Meyer
the cases from two counties; (2) the repeater allegations were not properly pled or proved and Meyer’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3811 - 2005-03-31
the cases from two counties; (2) the repeater allegations were not properly pled or proved and Meyer’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3811 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 31, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of A...
information. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand the case for resentencing. ¶2 An original
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26929 - 2006-10-30
information. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand the case for resentencing. ¶2 An original
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26929 - 2006-10-30
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
2 case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2023-24).2 We
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1003658 - 2025-09-03
2 case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2023-24).2 We
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1003658 - 2025-09-03
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=804071 - 2024-05-21
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=804071 - 2024-05-21
[PDF]
State v. Michael R. Saich
that “a decision in Thorstad will likely resolve any issue in this case.” 5 The Bohling requirements
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2380 - 2017-09-19
that “a decision in Thorstad will likely resolve any issue in this case.” 5 The Bohling requirements
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2380 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Rudolph Konlock v. Anthony DePietro
omitted). ¶7 The known and compelling danger exception is determined on a case-by-case basis. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6787 - 2017-09-20
omitted). ¶7 The known and compelling danger exception is determined on a case-by-case basis. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6787 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
NOTICE
general authority to maintain the orderly and prompt processing of cases provides authority to deny
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27853 - 2014-09-15
general authority to maintain the orderly and prompt processing of cases provides authority to deny
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27853 - 2014-09-15
State v. Michael R. Bender
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 97-1095-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12356 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 97-1095-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12356 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
Examining Welnicke’s actions in this case, we are satisfied that they did not constitute an unreasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93392 - 2013-03-05
Examining Welnicke’s actions in this case, we are satisfied that they did not constitute an unreasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93392 - 2013-03-05