Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5961 - 5970 of 98489 for civil court case status online.
Search results 5961 - 5970 of 98489 for civil court case status online.
COURT OF APPEALS
to represent him. The court denied the request because Kedinger’s case was a noncriminal matter. ¶5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45663 - 2010-01-12
to represent him. The court denied the request because Kedinger’s case was a noncriminal matter. ¶5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45663 - 2010-01-12
COURT OF APPEALS
underlying cases. After a nonevidentiary hearing, the trial court denied his motion.[2] Locke appeals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=139830 - 2015-04-14
underlying cases. After a nonevidentiary hearing, the trial court denied his motion.[2] Locke appeals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=139830 - 2015-04-14
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
2016. According to the criminal complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court case No. 2016CF1896
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=657002 - 2023-05-16
2016. According to the criminal complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court case No. 2016CF1896
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=657002 - 2023-05-16
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, and therefore that the malpractice cases were not joinable, requiring reversal of the circuit court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=227661 - 2018-12-17
, and therefore that the malpractice cases were not joinable, requiring reversal of the circuit court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=227661 - 2018-12-17
COURT OF APPEALS
-91. The court’s decision indicates it undertook an examination of the facts of the case and reasoned
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35548 - 2009-02-16
-91. The court’s decision indicates it undertook an examination of the facts of the case and reasoned
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35548 - 2009-02-16
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 14, 2013 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92779 - 2013-02-13
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 14, 2013 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92779 - 2013-02-13
COURT OF APPEALS
and Allbaugh’s testimony, and there is no indication the court relied on any information regarding the civil case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=62517 - 2011-04-06
and Allbaugh’s testimony, and there is no indication the court relied on any information regarding the civil case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=62517 - 2011-04-06
COURT OF APPEALS
the status element to the jury in this case was an erroneous exercise of discretion. Id. at 651.[3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41625 - 2009-09-28
the status element to the jury in this case was an erroneous exercise of discretion. Id. at 651.[3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41625 - 2009-09-28
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 26, 2019 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=236025 - 2019-02-26
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 26, 2019 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=236025 - 2019-02-26
[PDF]
NOTICE
to the disposition of this case, the court accepts them at face value. No. 2009AP262 3 Bartz filed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45266 - 2014-09-15
to the disposition of this case, the court accepts them at face value. No. 2009AP262 3 Bartz filed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45266 - 2014-09-15