Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 56361 - 56370 of 83087 for simple case search.

[PDF] CA Blank Order
and Kloppenburg, JJ. Prior to sentencing in this case, Sarah Nelson paid her crime victim $112,274, which
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=143245 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Brown County v. April O.
facts of this case, presents a legal question of statutory interpretation. Jason B. v. State, 176 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3419 - 2017-09-19

State v. Morgan Larson
subsequently charged him with six counts of second-degree sexual assault, and the case went to trial. Larson’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11254 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
missed court appearances, Joanna was found in default after failing to appear at court. The cases
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=730616 - 2023-11-21

[PDF] Shane C. Brickner v. Continental Casualty Company
cases that have interpreted the word “occupy” in different fact situations. See Sentry Ins. Co. v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10644 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] State v. Brent A. Graziano
when it prevented him from calling a social services case worker as a witness. Graziano’s failure
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19416 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Marshal G. Eske
for 1 In this case, Eske would earn good time credit at the rate provided for prison inmates because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12048 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Janice Mack v. Wisconsin Department of Health & Family Services
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 99-0627 Complete
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15228 - 2017-09-21

County of Marinette v. Robert A. Greene
. In this case, the question of probable cause requires the application of undisputed facts to principles of law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14426 - 2005-03-31

Wisconsin Department of Transportation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
. This is an eminent domain case where the State determined it needed to acquire a small portion of land from Wal-Mart
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11677 - 2005-03-31