Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5461 - 5470 of 32283 for pretrial conference status.

COURT OF APPEALS
there was at least one delay also attributable to the circuit court—the rescheduled March 30, 2010 status conference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58652 - 2011-01-11

[PDF] State v. Jamie L. Pennington
we assign no error to either party. At a January 4, 2001, status conference the court set trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5782 - 2017-09-19

State v. Jamie L. Pennington
, 2001, status conference the court set trial for June 4, which is when the trial proceeded. ¶29
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5782 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
was a “status element,”3 and because he stipulated to the existence of the injunctions, the only relevant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=247838 - 2019-10-01

[PDF] CA Blank Order
at conference that this matter is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2015-16
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=218469 - 2018-08-29

[PDF] CA Blank Order
review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=301796 - 2020-11-04

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
on January 12, 2022, and a presubmission conference, the parties have submitted memorandum briefs. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=571791 - 2022-09-27

State v. Alejandro Rivera
and Patrick to murder Carl in order to gain gang status and to obtain Carl’s property. ¶9 Rivera
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4140 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Alejandro Rivera
discussions between Williams and Patrick to murder Carl in order to gain gang status and to obtain Carl’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4140 - 2017-09-20

Daniel Steinbach v. Green Lake Sanitary District
in November 2002. ¶11 On February 5, 2003, following a telephone status conference, the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6788 - 2005-03-31