Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 76761 - 76770 of 83767 for simple case search.
Search results 76761 - 76770 of 83767 for simple case search.
COURT OF APPEALS
WI App 79, 281 Wis. 2d 228, 695 N.W.2d 840,[3] a case that involved the same UIM endorsement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31687 - 2008-01-30
WI App 79, 281 Wis. 2d 228, 695 N.W.2d 840,[3] a case that involved the same UIM endorsement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31687 - 2008-01-30
COURT OF APPEALS
Because the sentencing in this case occurred prior to September 1, 2007, the circuit court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33254 - 2008-07-01
Because the sentencing in this case occurred prior to September 1, 2007, the circuit court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33254 - 2008-07-01
CA Blank Order
, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See Wis. Stat. Rule
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=108709 - 2014-03-03
, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See Wis. Stat. Rule
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=108709 - 2014-03-03
State v. Jeffrey H. Andrus
. Our conclusion that the State breached the plea agreement does not resolve the case. As noted, Andrus
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9189 - 2005-03-31
. Our conclusion that the State breached the plea agreement does not resolve the case. As noted, Andrus
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9189 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
). Based upon our review of the briefs and the record, we conclude that this case is appropriate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104017 - 2013-11-12
). Based upon our review of the briefs and the record, we conclude that this case is appropriate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104017 - 2013-11-12
State v. Glen Proeber, Jr.
refusal was improper. Accordingly, we affirm. The facts in this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10060 - 2005-03-31
refusal was improper. Accordingly, we affirm. The facts in this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10060 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191973 - 2017-09-21
. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191973 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
time. The sentence was within the maximum sentence Broesch faced and, given the facts of this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=139096 - 2017-09-21
time. The sentence was within the maximum sentence Broesch faced and, given the facts of this case
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=139096 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
” which has been condemned by certain of the case law. The requirement of verification is addressed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33919 - 2014-09-15
” which has been condemned by certain of the case law. The requirement of verification is addressed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33919 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Henry James Brookshire
, as in Brookshire’s case, the court exercised its sentencing discretion “to select a specific sentence within
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18306 - 2017-09-21
, as in Brookshire’s case, the court exercised its sentencing discretion “to select a specific sentence within
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18306 - 2017-09-21