Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 45801 - 45810 of 84303 for case number.
Search results 45801 - 45810 of 84303 for case number.
[PDF]
State v. Hiram Johnson
the case for further proceedings. Johnson’s claim is based on § 939.66(2m), STATS., which prohibits
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11498 - 2017-09-19
the case for further proceedings. Johnson’s claim is based on § 939.66(2m), STATS., which prohibits
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11498 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2023-24).2 We summarily
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1045485 - 2025-12-04
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2023-24).2 We summarily
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1045485 - 2025-12-04
[PDF]
Patricia L. Grochowski v. Robert Larson
PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8902 - 2017-09-19
PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8902 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Debra J. Findlay
interprets these cases to mean “exigency isn’t determined by the nature of the offense being investigated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2841 - 2017-09-19
interprets these cases to mean “exigency isn’t determined by the nature of the offense being investigated
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2841 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. We affirm based upon
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=865811 - 2024-10-22
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. We affirm based upon
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=865811 - 2024-10-22
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
conclude that this case is moot, and we dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND ¶2 On April 28, 2023
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=953495 - 2025-05-13
conclude that this case is moot, and we dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND ¶2 On April 28, 2023
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=953495 - 2025-05-13
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
duplicates untainted evidence, the relative strength and weakness of the State’s case and the defendant’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=89347 - 2014-09-15
duplicates untainted evidence, the relative strength and weakness of the State’s case and the defendant’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=89347 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Lori L. Fleig v. Patrick A. Fleig
of this case. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion. ¶7 Lori argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2808 - 2017-09-19
of this case. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion. ¶7 Lori argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2808 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of conviction erroneously indicates that two counts charged in this case were dismissed as read-ins
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=183691 - 2017-09-21
of conviction erroneously indicates that two counts charged in this case were dismissed as read-ins
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=183691 - 2017-09-21
Sandra Kube v. Thomas A. Pietruszka
properly exercised its discretion, we affirm. This case arises from a dispute over
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14917 - 2005-03-31
properly exercised its discretion, we affirm. This case arises from a dispute over
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14917 - 2005-03-31