Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 8131 - 8140 of 58991 for quit claim deed.
Search results 8131 - 8140 of 58991 for quit claim deed.
[PDF]
Karen Herek v. State
are whether the plaintiffs failed to file a notice of claim under WIS. STAT. § 893.82(3) (1999-2000),1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3470 - 2017-09-20
are whether the plaintiffs failed to file a notice of claim under WIS. STAT. § 893.82(3) (1999-2000),1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3470 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
NOTICE
. The circuit court concluded that the County’s claim was precluded by an earlier action in Sauk County
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33677 - 2014-09-15
. The circuit court concluded that the County’s claim was precluded by an earlier action in Sauk County
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33677 - 2014-09-15
Graebner Enterprises, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company of Wisconsin
. Fireman's Fund contends that Graebner's claim is for breach of contract and not tort. Fireman's Fund also
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7820 - 2005-03-31
. Fireman's Fund contends that Graebner's claim is for breach of contract and not tort. Fireman's Fund also
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7820 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
conclude that the claims that Lewis raises are procedurally barred, and therefore, the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=596060 - 2022-12-06
conclude that the claims that Lewis raises are procedurally barred, and therefore, the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=596060 - 2022-12-06
[PDF]
Graebner Enterprises, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company of Wisconsin
of the case. Fireman's Fund contends that Graebner's claim is for breach of contract and not tort
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7820 - 2017-09-19
of the case. Fireman's Fund contends that Graebner's claim is for breach of contract and not tort
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7820 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
. § 974.06 (2005-06).[1] He seeks reversal of his conviction for five reasons. He claims that: (1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30270 - 2011-08-21
. § 974.06 (2005-06).[1] He seeks reversal of his conviction for five reasons. He claims that: (1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30270 - 2011-08-21
COURT OF APPEALS
Department of Natural Resources. ¶2 Watertown made a claim for all of these clean-up costs under its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59109 - 2011-02-22
Department of Natural Resources. ¶2 Watertown made a claim for all of these clean-up costs under its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59109 - 2011-02-22
[PDF]
NOTICE
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. ¶2 Watertown made a claim for all of these clean-up costs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59109 - 2014-09-15
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. ¶2 Watertown made a claim for all of these clean-up costs
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59109 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
dismissed their claims on the ground that WIS. STAT. § 181.0855(1) (2021-22)2 granted Barth immunity due
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=907115 - 2025-01-28
dismissed their claims on the ground that WIS. STAT. § 181.0855(1) (2021-22)2 granted Barth immunity due
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=907115 - 2025-01-28
[PDF]
WI APP 75
-Crisanto appeals from a summary judgment order, dismissing his negligence and safe-place statute claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=113884 - 2017-09-21
-Crisanto appeals from a summary judgment order, dismissing his negligence and safe-place statute claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=113884 - 2017-09-21