Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 71 - 80 of 414 for nr.
Search results 71 - 80 of 414 for nr.
State v. Russell K. Schreiber
of hunting deer after hours, contrary to Wis. Admin. Code § NR 10.06(3).[1] Schreiber argues that the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2159 - 2005-03-31
of hunting deer after hours, contrary to Wis. Admin. Code § NR 10.06(3).[1] Schreiber argues that the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2159 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
. §§ 227.52-53. Bormuth then filed a request under Wis. Admin. Code § NR 2.20 (Mar. 2014), for review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=146017 - 2015-08-10
. §§ 227.52-53. Bormuth then filed a request under Wis. Admin. Code § NR 2.20 (Mar. 2014), for review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=146017 - 2015-08-10
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. §§ 227.52-53. Bormuth then filed a request under WIS. ADMIN. CODE § NR 2.20 (Mar. 2014), for review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=146017 - 2017-09-21
. §§ 227.52-53. Bormuth then filed a request under WIS. ADMIN. CODE § NR 2.20 (Mar. 2014), for review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=146017 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
George M. Reynolds v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
application violated WIS. ADM. CODE § NR 502. Because the DNR's negative EIS decision was reasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9466 - 2017-09-19
application violated WIS. ADM. CODE § NR 502. Because the DNR's negative EIS decision was reasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9466 - 2017-09-19
George M. Reynolds v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
§ NR 502. Because the DNR's negative EIS decision was reasonable and because the DNR complied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9466 - 2005-03-31
§ NR 502. Because the DNR's negative EIS decision was reasonable and because the DNR complied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9466 - 2005-03-31
Maple Leaf Farms, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin-Department of Natural Resources
within the meaning of Wis. Admin. Code § NR 243.04(13). ¶3 The manure produced by Maple
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2626 - 2013-12-17
within the meaning of Wis. Admin. Code § NR 243.04(13). ¶3 The manure produced by Maple
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2626 - 2013-12-17
[PDF]
State v. Jeffrey L. Oskey
. However, the house is subject to certain restrictions, including WIS. ADMIN. CODE § NR 116.15 and Pierce
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9271 - 2017-09-19
. However, the house is subject to certain restrictions, including WIS. ADMIN. CODE § NR 116.15 and Pierce
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9271 - 2017-09-19
State v. Jeffrey L. Oskey
is subject to certain restrictions, including Wis. Admin. Code § NR 116.15 and Pierce County, Wis., Ordinance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9271 - 2005-03-31
is subject to certain restrictions, including Wis. Admin. Code § NR 116.15 and Pierce County, Wis., Ordinance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9271 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the trial court found that Reimer violated WIS. ADMIN. CODE § NR 216.46(1), because he did not develop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=65333 - 2014-09-15
the trial court found that Reimer violated WIS. ADMIN. CODE § NR 216.46(1), because he did not develop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=65333 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED June 7, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of ...
found that Reimer violated Wis. Admin. Code § NR 216.46(1), because he did not develop a site erosion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=65333 - 2011-06-06
found that Reimer violated Wis. Admin. Code § NR 216.46(1), because he did not develop a site erosion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=65333 - 2011-06-06