Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 7911 - 7920 of 84314 for simple case search/1000.
Search results 7911 - 7920 of 84314 for simple case search/1000.
[PDF]
State v. George W. Allen
a search warrant. Because of the affidavit's stale, irrelevant and conclusory averments, we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8724 - 2017-09-19
a search warrant. Because of the affidavit's stale, irrelevant and conclusory averments, we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8724 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Michael J. Farrell
was available, and therefore the blood test was an unreasonable search and seizure. We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3532 - 2017-09-19
was available, and therefore the blood test was an unreasonable search and seizure. We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3532 - 2017-09-19
State v. Michael J. Farrell
was in error because a breath test was available, and therefore the blood test was an unreasonable search
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3532 - 2005-03-31
was in error because a breath test was available, and therefore the blood test was an unreasonable search
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3532 - 2005-03-31
State v. John Tomlinson, Jr.
consent. In that case, the Court upheld the search of a bedroom, which the defendant occupied jointly
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16444 - 2005-03-31
consent. In that case, the Court upheld the search of a bedroom, which the defendant occupied jointly
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16444 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
) the blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=245227 - 2019-08-15
) the blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=245227 - 2019-08-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
a trial. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 In January 2013, police executed a no-knock search warrant at 1608
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=147788 - 2017-09-21
a trial. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 In January 2013, police executed a no-knock search warrant at 1608
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=147788 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
of this action and, in any case, erred in granting summary judgment in favor of GMAC. ¶2 We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103151 - 2013-10-16
of this action and, in any case, erred in granting summary judgment in favor of GMAC. ¶2 We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103151 - 2013-10-16
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and, in any case, erred in granting summary judgment in favor of GMAC. ¶2 We conclude that the court did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=103151 - 2017-09-21
and, in any case, erred in granting summary judgment in favor of GMAC. ¶2 We conclude that the court did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=103151 - 2017-09-21
Wisconsin Court System - eFile/eCourts
history Employment Current openings Court reporter information Law clerk information Benefits Case Search
/ecourts/efilecircuit/eupdates/eupdate17.htm - 2026-05-15
history Employment Current openings Court reporter information Law clerk information Benefits Case Search
/ecourts/efilecircuit/eupdates/eupdate17.htm - 2026-05-15
[PDF]
WI APP 132
2010 WI APP 132 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2009AP2831-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=53658 - 2014-09-15
2010 WI APP 132 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2009AP2831-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=53658 - 2014-09-15