Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 9891 - 9900 of 56398 for so.

State v. Robert K.
on the record and only for so long as is necessary, taking into account the request or consent of the district
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20325 - 2005-11-17

COURT OF APPEALS
the right to have a jury trial within forty-five days of his initial appearance, so that his newly appointed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36889 - 2009-06-18

[PDF] Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Dane County Board of Adjustment
order reversing the BOA’s decision, although we do so on different grounds. We conclude that the BOA
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16099 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] WI APP 163
of moneys so misappropriated and is punishable under s. 943.20. ¶13 As a threshold matter, we first
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29384 - 2014-09-15

COURT OF APPEALS
the limitations period. If so, the new claim in the later filed complaint is deemed to have been filed within
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=68025 - 2011-07-13

[PDF] WI APP 6
facts depend on No. 2008AP1647 4 which issue we are addressing. So except to summarize
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=44117 - 2014-09-15

Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Scott McCallum
relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5224 - 2005-03-31

John W. Torgerson v. Journal/Sentinel Inc.
rule so that title insurance companies would be exempt from filing reports of discounted title
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17013 - 2005-03-31

Sheboygan County DSS v. Matthew S.
has been summarized previously by Wisconsin courts, so it is unnecessary that we provide great detail
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18672 - 2005-06-21

Richard A. Ford v. Mike Holm
that the answer to these questions is no and that, given the supreme court’s express declination to so order
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5452 - 2005-03-31