Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 75271 - 75280 of 84491 for simple case search.
Search results 75271 - 75280 of 84491 for simple case search.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21(1). Based on Dukes’ failure
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1070449 - 2026-01-27
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21(1). Based on Dukes’ failure
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1070449 - 2026-01-27
State v. William C. Rosenberg
was charged as a repeat offender. ¶3 Eventually, all three cases were consolidated for purposes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15847 - 2005-03-31
was charged as a repeat offender. ¶3 Eventually, all three cases were consolidated for purposes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15847 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. No. 2022AP1710 2 briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=846807 - 2024-09-11
. No. 2022AP1710 2 briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=846807 - 2024-09-11
CA Blank Order
at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21 (2011-12).[1
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=95093 - 2013-04-02
at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21 (2011-12).[1
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=95093 - 2013-04-02
State v. Alberto B. Flores
of this case, we disagree. At sentencing, the court acknowledged Flores’ objections but did not rely upon
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13826 - 2005-03-31
of this case, we disagree. At sentencing, the court acknowledged Flores’ objections but did not rely upon
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13826 - 2005-03-31
State v. Covan A. Gavitt
presentation of the case. See State v. Shillcutt, 116 Wis.2d 227, 236, 341 N.W.2d 716, 720 (Ct. App. 1983
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12507 - 2005-03-31
presentation of the case. See State v. Shillcutt, 116 Wis.2d 227, 236, 341 N.W.2d 716, 720 (Ct. App. 1983
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12507 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21 (2013-14).[1] We summarily
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140529 - 2015-04-21
that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21 (2013-14).[1] We summarily
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140529 - 2015-04-21
Lance Reyzer v. Marten Transport, Ltd.
247, 260, 184 N.W.2d 127, 134 (1971). Because the dispute in this case centered on whether Reyzer’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13432 - 2005-03-31
247, 260, 184 N.W.2d 127, 134 (1971). Because the dispute in this case centered on whether Reyzer’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13432 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
the case and for judgment for his fees, which the circuit court granted on April 9, 2007. Stewart
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=96240 - 2013-05-01
the case and for judgment for his fees, which the circuit court granted on April 9, 2007. Stewart
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=96240 - 2013-05-01
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
levied in this case.” The court did not directly respond to this argument. ¶6 We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98584 - 2014-09-15
levied in this case.” The court did not directly respond to this argument. ¶6 We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98584 - 2014-09-15