Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 76141 - 76150 of 84465 for simple case search.
Search results 76141 - 76150 of 84465 for simple case search.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the deadline for a decision in this case. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.82(2)(a) (“the court upon its own motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1069739 - 2026-01-27
the deadline for a decision in this case. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.82(2)(a) (“the court upon its own motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1069739 - 2026-01-27
[PDF]
State v. Robert T. Langston
time is not an element in a sexual assault case, the State would not have been required to prove
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11319 - 2017-09-19
time is not an element in a sexual assault case, the State would not have been required to prove
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11319 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=789710 - 2024-04-17
conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=789710 - 2024-04-17
State v. Jeffrey Barnekow
at the postconviction hearing that he believed he had won the case and that he feared putting Barnekow through cross
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13453 - 2005-03-31
at the postconviction hearing that he believed he had won the case and that he feared putting Barnekow through cross
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13453 - 2005-03-31
State v. David T. O.
jurisdiction over the case to dismiss the action with prejudice, to waive its jurisdiction under s. 48.18
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12148 - 2005-03-31
jurisdiction over the case to dismiss the action with prejudice, to waive its jurisdiction under s. 48.18
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12148 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Joseph A. Landrum
considered “new factors” under existing case law, but refused to expand the definition of “new factor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5655 - 2017-09-19
considered “new factors” under existing case law, but refused to expand the definition of “new factor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5655 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2013-14). 1
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=157543 - 2017-09-21
at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2013-14). 1
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=157543 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
to the facts of this case. See State v. Brown, 2006 WI 131, ¶26, 298 Wis. 2d 37, 725 N.W.2d 262. Because
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=539134 - 2022-07-06
to the facts of this case. See State v. Brown, 2006 WI 131, ¶26, 298 Wis. 2d 37, 725 N.W.2d 262. Because
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=539134 - 2022-07-06
[PDF]
Frontsheet
2018 WI 108 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2017AP512-D COMPLETE TITLE
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=228813 - 2018-11-30
2018 WI 108 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2017AP512-D COMPLETE TITLE
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=228813 - 2018-11-30
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of the briefs and Record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1118291 - 2026-05-20
of the briefs and Record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1118291 - 2026-05-20