Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 56191 - 56200 of 61714 for judgment.
Search results 56191 - 56200 of 61714 for judgment.
CA Blank Order
for appeal. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment is summarily affirmed. Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=111233 - 2014-04-28
for appeal. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment is summarily affirmed. Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=111233 - 2014-04-28
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
revocation, which the circuit court granted. However, the motion merely sought amendment of the judgment
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=171811 - 2017-09-21
revocation, which the circuit court granted. However, the motion merely sought amendment of the judgment
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=171811 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Ivan L. Higginbotham, Jr.
not trigger a Klessig colloquy. By the Court.—Judgment affirmed. Nos. 03-2508-CR 03-2509-CR 03
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6895 - 2017-09-20
not trigger a Klessig colloquy. By the Court.—Judgment affirmed. Nos. 03-2508-CR 03-2509-CR 03
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6895 - 2017-09-20
COURT OF APPEALS
by the agency was arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable and represented the agency’s will and not its judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58975 - 2011-01-18
by the agency was arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable and represented the agency’s will and not its judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58975 - 2011-01-18
[PDF]
State v. Sebastian Molina
professional judgment. Id. at 637. We review de novo whether performance was deficient and prejudiced
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6143 - 2017-09-19
professional judgment. Id. at 637. We review de novo whether performance was deficient and prejudiced
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6143 - 2017-09-19
State v. Sebastian Molina
professional judgment. Id. at 637. We review de novo whether performance was deficient and prejudiced
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6143 - 2005-03-31
professional judgment. Id. at 637. We review de novo whether performance was deficient and prejudiced
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6143 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
action was arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable and represented its will and not its judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31179 - 2014-09-15
action was arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable and represented its will and not its judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31179 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
filed a no-merit report and Burse filed a response. We affirmed the judgment of conviction, expressly
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=250756 - 2019-11-26
filed a no-merit report and Burse filed a response. We affirmed the judgment of conviction, expressly
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=250756 - 2019-11-26
[PDF]
NOTICE
affirmed the judgment of conviction on January 31, 2005. ¶3 In September of 2005, Edwards filed a pro
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=51951 - 2014-09-15
affirmed the judgment of conviction on January 31, 2005. ¶3 In September of 2005, Edwards filed a pro
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=51951 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
“grossly” affected and that Emily’s “judgment, behavior, and capacity to recognize reality” were impaired
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=261502 - 2020-05-20
“grossly” affected and that Emily’s “judgment, behavior, and capacity to recognize reality” were impaired
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=261502 - 2020-05-20