Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 9811 - 9820 of 50070 for our.

COURT OF APPEALS
Our review of a suppression order is a two-step process. We shall uphold the trial court’s factual
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32815 - 2008-05-27

[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

2010 WI APP 167
the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 32.06(8), substantial compliance is sufficient. This is because our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56671 - 2011-08-21

[PDF] State v. Timothy Scott Bailey Smith, Sr.
not in any way change our analysis of the elements of the crime. No. 03-1698-CR 5 predicate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6621 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN
form of sentence than incarceration. Our supreme court observed in Will that a fine can be a useful
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30876 - 2007-12-18

[PDF] WI App 15
, 2004 WI 79, 273 Wis. 2d 76, 681 N.W.2d 190, our supreme court clarified that, because the state
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=770262 - 2024-04-10

Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund v. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Inc.
it deems a verdict to be contrary to the weight and preponderance of the evidence, our review is limited
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13423 - 2005-03-31

State v. David C. Polashek
of law subject to our de novo review. See Truttschel v. Martin, 208 Wis. 2d 361, 364-65, 560 N.W.2d 315
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2686 - 2005-03-31

2009 WI APP 120
awaiting trial). ¶19 Wisconsin Stat. § 904.03 establishes our rule regarding exclusion of relevant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36917 - 2009-08-25

[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