Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 6471 - 6480 of 34159 for dismissal.
Search results 6471 - 6480 of 34159 for dismissal.
[PDF]
Court of Appeals Statistics January 2026
and decision conference, and miscellaneous orders terminating cases (e.g., voluntary dismissals
/ca/stats/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1091697 - 2026-03-12
and decision conference, and miscellaneous orders terminating cases (e.g., voluntary dismissals
/ca/stats/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1091697 - 2026-03-12
[PDF]
_WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
Petition for Review Dismissed 1 2025 WI App 54 WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS TABLE
/ca/unptbl/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1013147 - 2025-09-17
Petition for Review Dismissed 1 2025 WI App 54 WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS TABLE
/ca/unptbl/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1013147 - 2025-09-17
[PDF]
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John F. Scanlan
to three dismissed counts and the recommended 180-day license suspension. The OLR claims the referee
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25068 - 2017-09-21
to three dismissed counts and the recommended 180-day license suspension. The OLR claims the referee
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25068 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI App 22
. Neuman moved to dismiss Hubbard’s complaint for failure to state a claim. She argues that, because she
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=779137 - 2025-07-11
. Neuman moved to dismiss Hubbard’s complaint for failure to state a claim. She argues that, because she
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=779137 - 2025-07-11
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John F. Scanlan
with respect to three dismissed counts and the recommended 180-day license suspension. The OLR claims
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25068 - 2006-05-04
with respect to three dismissed counts and the recommended 180-day license suspension. The OLR claims
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25068 - 2006-05-04
[PDF]
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
. No. 17-01.ssa 5 ¶2 Five justices voted to dismiss Petition 17-01. At an open public
/sc/scord/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192530 - 2017-09-21
. No. 17-01.ssa 5 ¶2 Five justices voted to dismiss Petition 17-01. At an open public
/sc/scord/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192530 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
. No. 17-01.ssa 5 ¶2 Five justices voted to dismiss Petition 17-01. At an open public
/sc/rulhear/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192530 - 2017-09-21
. No. 17-01.ssa 5 ¶2 Five justices voted to dismiss Petition 17-01. At an open public
/sc/rulhear/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192530 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
No. 2023AP2273. Schiewe challenges the circuit court’s denial of Schiewe’s pretrial motions to dismiss
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1024679 - 2025-11-10
No. 2023AP2273. Schiewe challenges the circuit court’s denial of Schiewe’s pretrial motions to dismiss
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1024679 - 2025-11-10
[PDF]
2023AP001399 - Petitioners' Supplemental Response to Motion to Recuse
confirms that Wisconsin law does not require recusal. The dismissed complaint was based on the same
/courts/supreme/origact/docs/23ap1399_0822petitionerssuppresponse.pdf - 2023-10-16
confirms that Wisconsin law does not require recusal. The dismissed complaint was based on the same
/courts/supreme/origact/docs/23ap1399_0822petitionerssuppresponse.pdf - 2023-10-16
[PDF]
Disposition table for May & June 2009
. Pollard 06/16/2009 2009AP1014-W Amble v. Watters 06/16/2009 8 PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DISMISSED
/sc/disptab/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=43690 - 2014-09-15
. Pollard 06/16/2009 2009AP1014-W Amble v. Watters 06/16/2009 8 PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DISMISSED
/sc/disptab/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=43690 - 2014-09-15