Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 9801 - 9810 of 50071 for our.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
., 191 Wis. 2d 680, 694, 530 N.W.2d 34 (Ct. App. 1995). Accordingly, we extend our deadline
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=549631 - 2022-07-28

[PDF] Victoria Jocius v. Mark Jocius
, we will refer to it as an order in our opinion. No. 96-2746 2 Before Wedemeyer, P.J
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11475 - 2017-09-19

Edward A. Hannan v. Thomas W. Godfrey
. Therefore, we confine our analysis to the trial court’s interpretation of paragraph 14B. Interpretation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15460 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Jesus Barbary
contends that our decision denying free transcripts was in error because he is indigent. We decline
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11590 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
(1)(e). “The scope of [our] review of an order of LIRC is narrow; [we] may only confirm or set
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=909998 - 2025-02-04

[PDF] J. Denis Moran v. Wisconsin Department of Administration and Mark D. Bugher
effected by §§ 57d and 57f of the same act, and also struck the last sentence. Neither change affects our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14661 - 2017-09-21

Joan La Rock v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue
). Our supreme court has identified three distinct levels of deference granted to agency decisions: great
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15362 - 2005-03-31

State v. Michael J. Carlson
to our attention only a part of the statute and, in so doing, he ignores that a complete reading gives
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3875 - 2005-03-31

State v. Joseph A. Lombard
. Finally, we conclude that our decision in State v. Zanelli, 223 Wis. 2d 545, 589 N.W.2d 687 (Ct. App 1998
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3361 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
“very nearly mirror” the police-citizen encounter examined by our supreme court in County of Grant v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=755251 - 2024-01-25