Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 6721 - 6730 of 63758 for Motion for joint custody.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
the results of the blood test obtained by the police. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=710212 - 2023-10-03

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
court against the DOT. The joint complaint alleged that both the Wilms and Hack-A-Way “conducted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=100523 - 2017-09-21

Kenneth W. Rupena v. Palmer Johnson of Racine, Inc.
The trial court initially denied both of defendant’s motions for summary judgment. After the Rupenas
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4607 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Kenneth W. Rupena v. Palmer Johnson of Racine, Inc.
problems. ¶3 The trial court initially denied both of defendant’s motions for summary judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4607 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS
for summary judgment, but the trial court denied that motion, stating that there were genuine issues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60862 - 2011-03-08

River Alliance of Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
granting the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) motion to dismiss. First, River Alliance asserts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6244 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] NOTICE
that motion, stating that there were genuine issues of material fact. ¶5 Between the City’s summary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60862 - 2014-09-15

COURT OF APPEALS
and disability. DeFlorian argues the trial court erred by denying her motions to set aside the verdict and grant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=94235 - 2013-03-18

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
court erred by denying her motions to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial based on jury
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=94235 - 2014-09-15

COURT OF APPEALS
Hack-A-Way and the Wilms then jointly filed this action in circuit court against the DOT. The joint
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=100523 - 2013-08-07