Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5601 - 5610 of 64935 for b's.
Search results 5601 - 5610 of 64935 for b's.
City of Milwaukee Post #2874 v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee
the adequacy or sufficiency of the approved plans. It bases this contention on Wis. Stat. § 32.25(2)(a) and (b
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4093 - 2005-03-31
the adequacy or sufficiency of the approved plans. It bases this contention on Wis. Stat. § 32.25(2)(a) and (b
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4093 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
under WIS. STAT. § 948.02(1)(b). By reference to § 948.02(1)(b), the court explained how the law
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=137101 - 2017-09-21
under WIS. STAT. § 948.02(1)(b). By reference to § 948.02(1)(b), the court explained how the law
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=137101 - 2017-09-21
State v. James W.
effort to provide the services ordered by the court,” see Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a)2.b; and (2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25338 - 2006-05-30
effort to provide the services ordered by the court,” see Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a)2.b; and (2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25338 - 2006-05-30
State v. Craig P. Helgeland
concentration (PAC) contrary to § 346.63(1)(b).[1] In due course, the State charged both offenses in a criminal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12415 - 2005-03-31
concentration (PAC) contrary to § 346.63(1)(b).[1] In due course, the State charged both offenses in a criminal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12415 - 2005-03-31
State v. Jesse S.
-ordered services to Jesse as required by § 48.415(2)(b), Stats., and that an alleged failure to adjourn
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12382 - 2005-03-31
-ordered services to Jesse as required by § 48.415(2)(b), Stats., and that an alleged failure to adjourn
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12382 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
in favor of upholding the statute. Id., ¶¶16-17; see Monroe County DHS v. Kelli B., 2004 WI 48, 271 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33381 - 2008-07-14
in favor of upholding the statute. Id., ¶¶16-17; see Monroe County DHS v. Kelli B., 2004 WI 48, 271 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33381 - 2008-07-14
State v. Daniel B. Knutson
, v. DANIEL B. KNUTSON, Defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11157 - 2005-03-31
, v. DANIEL B. KNUTSON, Defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11157 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Larry B. Hooker
, V. LARRY B. HOOKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. APPEAL from a judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6494 - 2017-09-19
, V. LARRY B. HOOKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. APPEAL from a judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6494 - 2017-09-19
State v. Larry B. Hooker
State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Larry B. Hooker
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6494 - 2005-03-31
State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Larry B. Hooker
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6494 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
. § 48.415(2)(a)2.b. The term “‘reasonable effort’ means an earnest and conscientious effort to take good
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=77920 - 2012-02-13
. § 48.415(2)(a)2.b. The term “‘reasonable effort’ means an earnest and conscientious effort to take good
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=77920 - 2012-02-13