Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 45631 - 45640 of 56214 for n y c.
Search results 45631 - 45640 of 56214 for n y c.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
¶4 n.3. On these facts, at the time of the stop, Knepfel had nothing more than an “inchoate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=181784 - 2017-09-21
¶4 n.3. On these facts, at the time of the stop, Knepfel had nothing more than an “inchoate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=181784 - 2017-09-21
State v. Dustin A. Cummings
element of the offense. Id. at 254 n.3. Cummings was not denied the right to present a defense
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24710 - 2006-04-04
element of the offense. Id. at 254 n.3. Cummings was not denied the right to present a defense
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24710 - 2006-04-04
State v. Brandon E. Jones
sentencing were the same. Wegner, 239 Wis. 2d 96, ¶7 n.1. Nonetheless, we clarified the reconfinement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20077 - 2006-01-09
sentencing were the same. Wegner, 239 Wis. 2d 96, ¶7 n.1. Nonetheless, we clarified the reconfinement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20077 - 2006-01-09
COURT OF APPEALS
. § 805.04(1), which provides: “[A]n action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58518 - 2011-01-03
. § 805.04(1), which provides: “[A]n action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58518 - 2011-01-03
COURT OF APPEALS
.” Cole I, 315 Wis. 2d 75, ¶42 n.10. ¶12 Cole understandably emphasizes the testimony from Riley
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=57655 - 2010-12-13
.” Cole I, 315 Wis. 2d 75, ¶42 n.10. ¶12 Cole understandably emphasizes the testimony from Riley
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=57655 - 2010-12-13
[PDF]
State v. David J. Brock
57, ¶3 n.2, 270 Wis. 2d 675, 678 N.W.2d 293. ¶13 “The Fourth Amendment does not require
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7631 - 2017-09-19
57, ¶3 n.2, 270 Wis. 2d 675, 678 N.W.2d 293. ¶13 “The Fourth Amendment does not require
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7631 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Sally J. Schultz-Fuhrman v. James R. Fuhrman
of discretion.” See, e.g., Shirk v. Bowling, 2001 WI 36, ¶9 n.6, 242 Wis. 2d 153, 624 N.W.2d 375
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26285 - 2017-09-21
of discretion.” See, e.g., Shirk v. Bowling, 2001 WI 36, ¶9 n.6, 242 Wis. 2d 153, 624 N.W.2d 375
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26285 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
). The court explained that “[i]n the absence of some such evidence, otherwise inoffensive contact between
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=195105 - 2017-09-21
). The court explained that “[i]n the absence of some such evidence, otherwise inoffensive contact between
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=195105 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Nancy D. McNamara v. Edward J. McNamara
that the department’s calculation was neither “equitable [n]or fair,” the court went on to conclude that, given
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16232 - 2017-09-21
that the department’s calculation was neither “equitable [n]or fair,” the court went on to conclude that, given
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16232 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Mary Krueger
statement at sentencing that “[n]otwithstanding suggestions to the contrary, it was the unequivocal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17982 - 2017-09-21
statement at sentencing that “[n]otwithstanding suggestions to the contrary, it was the unequivocal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17982 - 2017-09-21