Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 58621 - 58630 of 83441 for simple case search.
Search results 58621 - 58630 of 83441 for simple case search.
COURT OF APPEALS
and void. The stipulation continued: The parties are willing to compromise in order to resolve this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140563 - 2015-04-27
and void. The stipulation continued: The parties are willing to compromise in order to resolve this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140563 - 2015-04-27
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=989608 - 2025-07-30
upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=989608 - 2025-07-30
Village of Waterford v. Kurt J. Doerr
, the record shows that at the “motion to reopen,” Doerr explicitly abandoned his request for the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13708 - 2005-03-31
, the record shows that at the “motion to reopen,” Doerr explicitly abandoned his request for the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13708 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
on our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=836256 - 2024-08-08
on our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=836256 - 2024-08-08
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
Public Defender’s Office (SPD). Kelsay contends that WERC lost jurisdiction over his case by failing
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=349912 - 2021-03-30
Public Defender’s Office (SPD). Kelsay contends that WERC lost jurisdiction over his case by failing
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=349912 - 2021-03-30
State v. Booker T. Shipp
was prejudicial to defendant’s case, in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment[s] to the United States
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12868 - 2005-03-31
was prejudicial to defendant’s case, in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment[s] to the United States
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12868 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Bank One v. Breakers Development, Inc.
PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9996 - 2017-09-19
PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9996 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
There is no developed argument from Marketplace Foods that addresses the appropriate standard of review in this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=207571 - 2018-01-25
There is no developed argument from Marketplace Foods that addresses the appropriate standard of review in this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=207571 - 2018-01-25
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
was inapplicable in this case. Because we agree with the court that the arresting officer had reasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=441190 - 2021-10-13
was inapplicable in this case. Because we agree with the court that the arresting officer had reasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=441190 - 2021-10-13
CA Blank Order
to the trial court’s discretion. See Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶41. In this case, the trial court applied
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=97924 - 2013-06-04
to the trial court’s discretion. See Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶41. In this case, the trial court applied
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=97924 - 2013-06-04