Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 4481 - 4490 of 49855 for our.
Search results 4481 - 4490 of 49855 for our.
State v. Matrice L.R.
was not as categorical as our description suggests it was, the court nevertheless considered all of the important
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12414 - 2005-03-31
was not as categorical as our description suggests it was, the court nevertheless considered all of the important
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12414 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
of his ineligibility determination, our decision is not predicated on Escalona. Our decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46255 - 2010-01-25
of his ineligibility determination, our decision is not predicated on Escalona. Our decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=46255 - 2010-01-25
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
with trial counsel’s representation of him, and based on our independent review, we conclude the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1030748 - 2025-11-05
with trial counsel’s representation of him, and based on our independent review, we conclude the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1030748 - 2025-11-05
COURT OF APPEALS
not substitute our judgment for the Commission’s in considering the weight or credibility of the evidence on any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=42500 - 2009-10-21
not substitute our judgment for the Commission’s in considering the weight or credibility of the evidence on any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=42500 - 2009-10-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
was a valid trial strategy. With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence, we may not substitute our
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=103604 - 2017-09-21
was a valid trial strategy. With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence, we may not substitute our
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=103604 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
. We decline to do so. Our standard of review is clear. The trial court’s findings of facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=63801 - 2011-05-10
. We decline to do so. Our standard of review is clear. The trial court’s findings of facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=63801 - 2011-05-10
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). Based upon our review of the briefs and Record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=641016 - 2023-04-05
, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). Based upon our review of the briefs and Record, we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=641016 - 2023-04-05
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
has not filed a response. Based on our review of the no-merit report and our independent review
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=551600 - 2022-08-02
has not filed a response. Based on our review of the no-merit report and our independent review
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=551600 - 2022-08-02
COURT OF APPEALS
the absence of fact finding as problematic to our decision.[4] We therefore conclude that the disputed facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=37201 - 2009-07-06
the absence of fact finding as problematic to our decision.[4] We therefore conclude that the disputed facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=37201 - 2009-07-06
[PDF]
NOTICE
. § 102.23(6) (2007-08).1 We do not substitute our judgment for the Commission’s in considering
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=42500 - 2014-09-15
. § 102.23(6) (2007-08).1 We do not substitute our judgment for the Commission’s in considering
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=42500 - 2014-09-15