Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 8751 - 8760 of 28855 for f.

[PDF] IW-1766; Request to Change Placement, Revise Dispositional Order - Indian Child Welfare Act
. See attached F. The proposed change in placement would move the child/juvenile
/formdisplay/IW-1766.pdf?formNumber=IW-1766&formType=Form&formatId=2&language=en - 2024-12-20

[PDF] State v. Daniel W. Harr
. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County: JACK F. AULIK, Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11822 - 2017-09-21

Wendy Marie Henderson v. John Glaus
. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Pierce County: DANE F. MOREY, Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10717 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] City of Marshfield v. Frank A. Vietschegger
. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Wood County: EDWARD F. ZAPPEN, JR., Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9762 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Green Bay Packaging, Inc. v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
. APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Marathon County: RAYMOND F. THUMS, Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10573 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT III VERNON F. BORST AND CAROLYN R. BORST, PETITIONERS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=88574 - 2014-09-15

State v. Marc A. Lindskog
(1)(b)4. [1] This is a one-judge appeal pursuant to Wis. Stat. ยง 752.31(2)(f) (2003-04). All
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7491 - 2005-03-31

State v. Steven K. Pinney
. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Wood County: EDWARD F. ZAPPEN, JR., Judge. Reversed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9995 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Steven K. Pinney
. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Wood County: EDWARD F. ZAPPEN, JR., Judge. Reversed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9995 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Susan C. Lulling-Porter v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections
is a "prisoner under custody" for the purpose of using its provisions. See United States v. Essig, 10 F.3d 968
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9156 - 2017-09-19