Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 7391 - 7400 of 50070 for our.

COURT OF APPEALS
., ¶37. We review that decision for an erroneous exercise of discretion. Id., ¶33. ¶9 Our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=87179 - 2012-09-17

[PDF] CA Blank Order
alternatives to revocation. Based upon our review of the briefs and the record, No. 2018AP670 2
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=231239 - 2018-12-26

[PDF] CA Blank Order
to the no-merit report, but he has not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=593015 - 2022-11-22

COURT OF APPEALS
and most appropriate result. Third, our holding creates a “bright-line” test that is easy to follow
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=49274 - 2010-04-26

City of Fountain City v. Lance Wilson
), our supreme court held that, as long as certain elements are met, the State is entitled to withdraw
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16151 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
court’s sound discretion. See Vretenar v. Hebron, 144 Wis. 2d 655, 661, 424 N.W.2d 714 (1988). Our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=116156 - 2014-07-07

[PDF] Mark B. Evans v. Dan Bertrand
Our scope of review is identical to the circuit court’s on certiorari. See State ex rel. Staples v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5447 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] CA Blank Order
not responded. Upon our independent review of the appellate records as mandated by Anders v. California, 386
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=926438 - 2025-03-18

COURT OF APPEALS
) sets forth the standard that applies to our review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=48942 - 2010-04-13

COURT OF APPEALS
of confinement up to that point. ¶11 Additionally, although not critical to our holding, we note that had
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=40268 - 2009-08-31