Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 701 - 710 of 27322 for julie genzel.
Search results 701 - 710 of 27322 for julie genzel.
[PDF]
NOTICE
IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: JULIE A. SKUBAL, PETITIONER
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=43093 - 2014-09-15
IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: JULIE A. SKUBAL, PETITIONER
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=43093 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Mark R. McNamee
. The following July, McNamee’s probation agent informed the court that McNamee had been charged in Marquette
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15282 - 2017-09-21
. The following July, McNamee’s probation agent informed the court that McNamee had been charged in Marquette
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15282 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
“[be]cause he’s serving time on the other cases.” On July 16, 2012, Schmitt filed a pro se motion
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=94618 - 2014-09-15
“[be]cause he’s serving time on the other cases.” On July 16, 2012, Schmitt filed a pro se motion
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=94618 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
In re the marriage of: Julie A. Skubal, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Thomas M
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=43093 - 2009-11-04
In re the marriage of: Julie A. Skubal, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Thomas M
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=43093 - 2009-11-04
[PDF]
NOTICE
NOTICE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 27, 2010 A. John Voelker
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52521 - 2014-09-15
NOTICE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 27, 2010 A. John Voelker
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52521 - 2014-09-15
State v. Jeremy J. Ramirez
verdict of guilty. We disagree and therefore affirm. ¶2 Between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on July
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6360 - 2005-03-31
verdict of guilty. We disagree and therefore affirm. ¶2 Between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on July
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6360 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Fran Ingebritson v. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Madison
interpret it; and (5) the ZBA's denial of Ingebritson's request to reopen its July 22, 1993 decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10617 - 2017-09-20
interpret it; and (5) the ZBA's denial of Ingebritson's request to reopen its July 22, 1993 decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10617 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
Fran Ingebritson v. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Madison
interpret it; and (5) the ZBA's denial of Ingebritson's request to reopen its July 22, 1993 decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9324 - 2017-09-19
interpret it; and (5) the ZBA's denial of Ingebritson's request to reopen its July 22, 1993 decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9324 - 2017-09-19
Fran Ingebritson v. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Madison
of Ingebritson's request to reopen its July 22, 1993 decision was not arbitrary and capricious. Ingebritson cross
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10617 - 2005-03-31
of Ingebritson's request to reopen its July 22, 1993 decision was not arbitrary and capricious. Ingebritson cross
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10617 - 2005-03-31
Fran Ingebritson v. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Madison
of Ingebritson's request to reopen its July 22, 1993 decision was not arbitrary and capricious. Ingebritson cross
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9324 - 2005-03-31
of Ingebritson's request to reopen its July 22, 1993 decision was not arbitrary and capricious. Ingebritson cross
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9324 - 2005-03-31