Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5431 - 5440 of 72753 for we.
Search results 5431 - 5440 of 72753 for we.
City of New Berlin v. Dennis Barker
proceeding, we need not decide that intriguing issue in this case since the City of New Berlin established
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6138 - 2005-03-31
proceeding, we need not decide that intriguing issue in this case since the City of New Berlin established
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6138 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Christopher L.
restitution; therefore, its order of restitution violated the statutory mandates. We disagree; instead
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13015 - 2017-09-21
restitution; therefore, its order of restitution violated the statutory mandates. We disagree; instead
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13015 - 2017-09-21
City of Oshkosh v. Robert M. Sheets
and for an adjournment of the trial. While we hold that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Sheets
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3001 - 2005-03-31
and for an adjournment of the trial. While we hold that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Sheets
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3001 - 2005-03-31
City of New Berlin v. Dennis Barker
proceeding, we need not decide that intriguing issue in this case since the City of New Berlin established
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6137 - 2005-03-31
proceeding, we need not decide that intriguing issue in this case since the City of New Berlin established
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6137 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
County. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 On August 18, 2022, Miller sent a public records request to MCEC
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=894349 - 2024-12-26
County. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 On August 18, 2022, Miller sent a public records request to MCEC
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=894349 - 2024-12-26
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
denying his postconviction motion to review his presentence investigation (PSI) report. We affirm. ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=239679 - 2019-04-30
denying his postconviction motion to review his presentence investigation (PSI) report. We affirm. ¶2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=239679 - 2019-04-30
[PDF]
City of Madison v. Richard K. Freye
and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm for reasons given
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12898 - 2017-09-21
and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm for reasons given
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12898 - 2017-09-21
State v. Richard O. Mattingly
. Because Mattingly has not proven that the juror was biased, we conclude that Mattingly was not prejudiced
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13569 - 2005-03-31
. Because Mattingly has not proven that the juror was biased, we conclude that Mattingly was not prejudiced
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13569 - 2005-03-31
State v. Cori E. Jeffers
year, and included as a condition of probation ten days in the county jail. We conclude that the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12182 - 2005-03-31
year, and included as a condition of probation ten days in the county jail. We conclude that the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12182 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
through adverse possession.[4] We disagree and affirm. Background ¶3 This case involves four
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85394 - 2012-07-25
through adverse possession.[4] We disagree and affirm. Background ¶3 This case involves four
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85394 - 2012-07-25