Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 7871 - 7880 of 68499 for did.
Search results 7871 - 7880 of 68499 for did.
COURT OF APPEALS
did he receive a copy of the restitution order.[4] He claimed that he only learned about the order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131343 - 2014-12-08
did he receive a copy of the restitution order.[4] He claimed that he only learned about the order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131343 - 2014-12-08
State v. Herbert W. McGee
that the evidence shows that the witnesses did not see the person who fired the shotgun, but that they agreed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12222 - 2005-03-31
that the evidence shows that the witnesses did not see the person who fired the shotgun, but that they agreed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12222 - 2005-03-31
St. Croix County v. Adam Douglas Cress
that there was no probable cause because of the officer’s subjective determination that Cress did not intend to damage
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3353 - 2005-03-31
that there was no probable cause because of the officer’s subjective determination that Cress did not intend to damage
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3353 - 2005-03-31
AM Transportation, Inc. v. Matarah Industries, Inc.
carriers. Because the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment, we affirm. BACKGROUND
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2436 - 2005-03-31
carriers. Because the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment, we affirm. BACKGROUND
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2436 - 2005-03-31
State v. Randy Giese
of § 144.44, Stats., did not provide a private cause of action. The provision upon which Giese relies
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8368 - 2005-03-31
of § 144.44, Stats., did not provide a private cause of action. The provision upon which Giese relies
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8368 - 2005-03-31
Irving G. Wenzel v. Washburn County
counsel's actions did not constitute a violation of § 802.05 because his inquiry was reasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8767 - 2005-03-31
counsel's actions did not constitute a violation of § 802.05 because his inquiry was reasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8767 - 2005-03-31
John Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee
that it “did not know that Siegfried Widera had a history of molesting children” and “did not know
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26312 - 2006-08-28
that it “did not know that Siegfried Widera had a history of molesting children” and “did not know
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26312 - 2006-08-28
Manitowoc County v. Leesa J.Y.
and the guardian ad litem, did not constitute plain error, nor did they constitute ineffective assistance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14347 - 2005-03-31
and the guardian ad litem, did not constitute plain error, nor did they constitute ineffective assistance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14347 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
that Dezotell “did in fact tell Ashland County Deputy Frostman that he saw Hoeft attempt to steal a load
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72951 - 2011-10-31
that Dezotell “did in fact tell Ashland County Deputy Frostman that he saw Hoeft attempt to steal a load
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72951 - 2011-10-31
COURT OF APPEALS
of Stevens Point in Portage County, Wisconsin, you did intentionally and feloniously confine or restrain
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93172 - 2013-02-20
of Stevens Point in Portage County, Wisconsin, you did intentionally and feloniously confine or restrain
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93172 - 2013-02-20