Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 72331 - 72340 of 77380 for judgment for u s.
Search results 72331 - 72340 of 77380 for judgment for u s.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and summarily argue[d] that postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to bring the claim[s] he now
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1028958 - 2025-10-28
and summarily argue[d] that postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to bring the claim[s] he now
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1028958 - 2025-10-28
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
rejected this claim. “[S]ufficiency of the evidence review [is] ‘independent of the jury’s determination
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=458073 - 2021-11-30
rejected this claim. “[S]ufficiency of the evidence review [is] ‘independent of the jury’s determination
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=458073 - 2021-11-30
[PDF]
State v. David A. Porth, Sr.
SNYDER, J. The State appeals from a trial court order granting David A. Porth, Sr.’s motion for a new
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4539 - 2017-09-20
SNYDER, J. The State appeals from a trial court order granting David A. Porth, Sr.’s motion for a new
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4539 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and internal quotation marks omitted). “‘[S]trictly speaking, there is never a real Brady
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=122463 - 2014-09-25
and internal quotation marks omitted). “‘[S]trictly speaking, there is never a real Brady
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=122463 - 2014-09-25
[PDF]
WI APP 58
. S. Potts, assistant attorney general, and Brad D. Schimel, attorney general. 2016
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=172948 - 2017-09-21
. S. Potts, assistant attorney general, and Brad D. Schimel, attorney general. 2016
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=172948 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
the evidence, viewed most favorably to the [S]tate and the commitment, is so insufficient in probative value
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98463 - 2014-09-15
the evidence, viewed most favorably to the [S]tate and the commitment, is so insufficient in probative value
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98463 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
periods of physical placement under s. 767.41 may file a motion under sub. (3) if any of the following
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=179778 - 2017-09-21
periods of physical placement under s. 767.41 may file a motion under sub. (3) if any of the following
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=179778 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
and internal quotation marks omitted). “‘[S]trictly speaking, there is never a real Brady violation unless
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=122463 - 2014-09-24
and internal quotation marks omitted). “‘[S]trictly speaking, there is never a real Brady violation unless
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=122463 - 2014-09-24
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that the trial court made only “limited findings” relating to whether there were any “[s]pecial circumstances
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=346168 - 2021-05-06
that the trial court made only “limited findings” relating to whether there were any “[s]pecial circumstances
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=346168 - 2021-05-06
COURT OF APPEALS
in Wisconsin must “[s]tate with particularity the grounds for the motion,” Wis. Stat. § 971.30(2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34028 - 2008-09-16
in Wisconsin must “[s]tate with particularity the grounds for the motion,” Wis. Stat. § 971.30(2
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34028 - 2008-09-16