Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 77781 - 77790 of 84403 for simple case search.

[PDF] State v. William D. Olson
charged in two separate cases with two counts of escape—one resulting from his escape from his parents
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8358 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Jill K. Niese v. Skip Barber Racing School, Inc.
. We find Werdehoff to be controlling. ¶12 The facts in Werdehoff are similar to those in the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3741 - 2017-09-19

State v. David K. Dellis
: It is quite accurate that the State has a difficult case in terms of the [original charge of] second degree
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14750 - 2005-03-31

Stupar River LLC v. Town of Linwood Board of Review
;” the case was remanded to the Board for a reassessment for the 2002 tax year. The Board appeals. STANDARD
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17803 - 2005-05-02

Phyllis M. Landis v. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Inc.
2000 WI App 164 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2231 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] NOTICE
the decision of the board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Oshkosh. In this zoning case, the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=50544 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Stupar River LLC v. Town of Linwood Board of Review
the tax assessment, concluding the valuation “was not made on the statutory basis;” the case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17803 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Brown County Department of Human Services v. Mary G.
of the parent or expectant mother and other relevant circumstances of the case. b. That the agency
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4698 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS
the two at issue in this case, to Devine and C C Electric but not to the mortgage company.[3] Regarding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78035 - 2012-02-13

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
to forty-five days, see § 51.20(13)(g)2., and, in this case, the court ordered a six-month commitment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=104752 - 2017-09-21