Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 49641 - 49650 of 82596 for case codes/1000.
Search results 49641 - 49650 of 82596 for case codes/1000.
Leo Dunlap v. City of Kenosha
. App. 1988). The question in this case is whether the concrete walkway constitutes a sidewalk under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19871 - 2005-10-11
. App. 1988). The question in this case is whether the concrete walkway constitutes a sidewalk under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19871 - 2005-10-11
John Marder v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
., despite the fact that no such finding was made in either case. The final set of documents at issue here
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14572 - 2005-03-31
., despite the fact that no such finding was made in either case. The final set of documents at issue here
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14572 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Cindy Lou Kusisto
sentences commuted pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 973.13 (“In any case where the court imposes a maximum
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25613 - 2017-09-21
sentences commuted pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 973.13 (“In any case where the court imposes a maximum
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25613 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=989750 - 2025-07-29
of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=989750 - 2025-07-29
John D. Hennick v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue
.2d 595, 599, 431 N.W.2d 730, 732 (Ct. App. 1988). The facts of this case are undisputed, and we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9956 - 2005-03-31
.2d 595, 599, 431 N.W.2d 730, 732 (Ct. App. 1988). The facts of this case are undisputed, and we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9956 - 2005-03-31
State v. Charles Young-Cooper
not established that his counsel’s performance was deficient. Young-Cooper relies on the case of State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3683 - 2005-03-31
not established that his counsel’s performance was deficient. Young-Cooper relies on the case of State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3683 - 2005-03-31
State v. Jason M.J.
that the consent decree must be agreed to by the person filing the petition, which in this case is the State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9838 - 2005-03-31
that the consent decree must be agreed to by the person filing the petition, which in this case is the State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9838 - 2005-03-31
State v. Richard A. Edwards
that Bohling supports his position in this case because the supreme court concluded that a delay in taking
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15571 - 2005-03-31
that Bohling supports his position in this case because the supreme court concluded that a delay in taking
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15571 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
David G. Aul v. Charles L. Murray
him. Murray waived any objection to having Judge Race preside over the case. See id. at 519, 527
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8833 - 2017-09-19
him. Murray waived any objection to having Judge Race preside over the case. See id. at 519, 527
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8833 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
NOTICE
is particularly problematic because he simply ignores recent, critical case law on this issue. In State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=47128 - 2014-09-15
is particularly problematic because he simply ignores recent, critical case law on this issue. In State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=47128 - 2014-09-15