Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 45181 - 45190 of 84324 for simple case search/1000.
Search results 45181 - 45190 of 84324 for simple case search/1000.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, the court commissioner dismissed Finch’s case. ¶3 Finch filed a demand for a trial before the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=858979 - 2024-10-08
, the court commissioner dismissed Finch’s case. ¶3 Finch filed a demand for a trial before the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=858979 - 2024-10-08
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=165915 - 2017-09-21
of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=165915 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
2 we conclude that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1002909 - 2025-08-27
2 we conclude that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1002909 - 2025-08-27
COURT OF APPEALS
the motion, explaining that Miller “does not apply to [Hampton’s] case because a parole eligibility date
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=127949 - 2014-11-17
the motion, explaining that Miller “does not apply to [Hampton’s] case because a parole eligibility date
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=127949 - 2014-11-17
City of Wautoma v. David H. Jansen
of the Wautoma city ordinances. He argues that: (1) his case was illegally tried
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9249 - 2005-03-31
of the Wautoma city ordinances. He argues that: (1) his case was illegally tried
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9249 - 2005-03-31
Kristofer Ashmore v. Gary R. McCaughtry
court concluded that claim preclusion barred review in case 914233-382. In case 920122‑492 the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2162 - 2005-03-31
court concluded that claim preclusion barred review in case 914233-382. In case 920122‑492 the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2162 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
conclude that this case is controlled by State v. Sutton, 2006 WI App 118, 294 Wis. 2d 330, 718 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30036 - 2014-09-15
conclude that this case is controlled by State v. Sutton, 2006 WI App 118, 294 Wis. 2d 330, 718 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30036 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
in relation to neighboring structures on the lake. Applying setback averaging in this case reduced
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=65643 - 2011-06-13
in relation to neighboring structures on the lake. Applying setback averaging in this case reduced
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=65643 - 2011-06-13
COURT OF APPEALS - CASE LOAD STATISTICS District ...
- CASE LOAD STATISTICS District I II
/ca/statsan/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78349 - 2013-02-11
- CASE LOAD STATISTICS District I II
/ca/statsan/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78349 - 2013-02-11
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=925540 - 2025-03-12
conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=925540 - 2025-03-12