Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 81411 - 81420 of 84117 for simple case search.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
: My gut was that it was a probation case. But I, of course, go over the maximum possible … penalty
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=76597 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Catherine J. Farrey v. Russell S. Gonnering
, 139 (Ct. App. 1993) (party with burden of proof on element in case must establish
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9557 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] State v. Leonard McDowell
of the case. A number of hearings were held where a number of doctors testified that they believed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10418 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] State v. Kerney Wright
case will not be reversed unless the court erroneously exercised its discretion. Id. The State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10450 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
presented that this was not a marital waste case[.]” Rather, the court found that the factors under WIS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=249699 - 2019-11-07

[PDF] January 2006 Table of Unpublished Opinions
except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case. Docket
/ca/unptbl/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21328 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] NOTICE
and appellate counsel perform two distinct roles. However, they are often the same person. In this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34566 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] CA Blank Order
conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition, and affirm. See WIS. STAT
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=688887 - 2023-08-15

Ashland County Child Support Agency v. Gary R. Sarver
isn’t modifying the order; and while there is some case law out there that talks about the ability
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20961 - 2006-01-17

State v. Outagamie County Board of Adjustment
decision, equitable disposition of the case required its remand to the board. See Arndorfer v. Sauk Cty
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4352 - 2005-03-31