Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 66691 - 66700 of 83494 for case codes/1000.

Amir Mahmoud v. Michael Ortiz
the burden of proof for establishing a prima facie case. See Brandt v. Brandt, 145 Wis. 2d 394, 409, 427 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6387 - 2005-03-31

City of Whitewater v. Robert P. Michor
that in the case at bar, however, all we have is weaving within a traffic lane, conduct which he submits is neither
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4683 - 2005-03-31

Marathon County v. Faye P.
but that counsel did not discover the case assignment until after the hearing on that day. Faye P. subsequently
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9604 - 2005-03-31

State v. William R. Severson
in this case. We “apply the ‘clearly erroneous’ test to the trial court’s findings regarding those facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6029 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
scenarios that could have been the case. But the facts are that the officer found Bingham slouched down
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44277 - 2009-12-09

[PDF] CA Blank Order
. Based on our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1027866 - 2025-10-23

COURT OF APPEALS
complaints in both of these cases? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: And did you understand what you read
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=110227 - 2014-04-15

[PDF] State v. Alan David McCormack
discovery of the evidence; (3) the evidence is material to an issue in the case; (4) the evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6052 - 2017-09-19

Peter J. Ambler v. Richard F. Rice
, the case moves to a second phase called a "suit within a suit" to determine what the outcome
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9563 - 2005-03-31

Marion Kay Smith v. Robert Joseph Smith
in each individual case determine to be relevant.” Sec. 767.255(3)(m). The division of the marital
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5614 - 2005-03-31