Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 6941 - 6950 of 56543 for n y c.

[PDF] WI 90
of a violation of s. 948.02(1)(b) or (c) or 948.025(1)(a), the court shall impose a bifurcated sentence under s
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84833 - 2014-09-15

Frontsheet
sex offenses. (1) If a person is convicted of a violation of s. 948.02(1)(b) or (c) or 948.025(1
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84833 - 2012-07-11

Jason J. Cramer v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals
there were briefs by Joseph N. Ehmann, Brian C. Findley and William J. Tyroler, assistant state public
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17509 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Jason J. Cramer v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals
: For the petitioner there were briefs by Joseph N. Ehmann, Brian C. Findley and William J. Tyroler, assistant state
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17509 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] WI APP 250
charge could be reduced to a Class C felony if the prosecution failed to prove that the victim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27071 - 2014-09-15

2006 WI APP 250
to a Class C felony if the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was released with permanent physical
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27071 - 2006-12-19

[PDF] Shona Sweeney v. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin
. Id. at 548 n.6, 444 N.W.2d at 467. In affirming on other grounds, the supreme court in Smith II
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12740 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
. No. 2014CV2277 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV RAY C. FELDMAN, CARRIE DONAHUE
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=219082 - 2019-01-29

[PDF] Frontsheet
, sensitivity, and fairness. (b) To privacy. (c) To proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (d
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=656770 - 2023-07-06

ANR Pipeline Company v.
, was not necessarily a discriminatory tax prohibited by the 4-R Act. [5] Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. DOR, No. 88-C
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9942 - 2005-03-31