Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 49841 - 49850 of 82993 for case codes/1000.
Search results 49841 - 49850 of 82993 for case codes/1000.
[PDF]
NOTICE
language, Spring argues: This case’s dispositional order failed to comply with [the] statutory
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27153 - 2014-09-15
language, Spring argues: This case’s dispositional order failed to comply with [the] statutory
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27153 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM. This case arose on cross-motions for summary judgment after psychologist Marc Ackerman
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32834 - 2008-06-03
PER CURIAM. This case arose on cross-motions for summary judgment after psychologist Marc Ackerman
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32834 - 2008-06-03
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
is a correct statement of Wisconsin law, we conclude the circuit court in the present case properly applied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=682204 - 2023-07-26
is a correct statement of Wisconsin law, we conclude the circuit court in the present case properly applied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=682204 - 2023-07-26
[PDF]
LBY and Associates, Inc. v. Warren Lee Brandt
the case did not "adhere to any rule with an eye to serving justice." This court disagrees. ¶9
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15916 - 2017-09-21
the case did not "adhere to any rule with an eye to serving justice." This court disagrees. ¶9
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15916 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
James A. Billington v. Wilbert C. Oldenhoff
5 Selzer, 2002 WI App 232, ¶10. In this case we are required to interpret WIS. STAT. § 632.32
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6943 - 2017-09-20
5 Selzer, 2002 WI App 232, ¶10. In this case we are required to interpret WIS. STAT. § 632.32
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6943 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
State v. Virtis A.
the termination order. We affirm. ¶2 This case is governed by our standard of review. We give significant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6667 - 2017-09-20
the termination order. We affirm. ¶2 This case is governed by our standard of review. We give significant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6667 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
School District of Waukesha v. School District Boundary Appeal Board
PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8854 - 2017-09-19
PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8854 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
untainted evidence; (5) the nature of the defense; (6) the nature of the State’s case; and (7) the overall
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145219 - 2017-09-21
untainted evidence; (5) the nature of the defense; (6) the nature of the State’s case; and (7) the overall
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145219 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Richard Allen Hassel
2005 WI APP 80 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 04-1824-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7587 - 2017-09-19
2005 WI APP 80 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 04-1824-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7587 - 2017-09-19
State v. Gerold A. Haut
was reasonable based on the particular facts of the case and in light of the time counsel acted or failed to act
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7449 - 2005-05-09
was reasonable based on the particular facts of the case and in light of the time counsel acted or failed to act
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7449 - 2005-05-09