Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 9971 - 9980 of 49813 for our.
Search results 9971 - 9980 of 49813 for our.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. After our independent
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=788822 - 2024-04-16
is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. After our independent
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=788822 - 2024-04-16
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
education and general comprehension and to the voluntariness of his plea. Our review of the appellate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=533305 - 2022-06-22
education and general comprehension and to the voluntariness of his plea. Our review of the appellate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=533305 - 2022-06-22
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
to respond and has not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98401 - 2014-09-15
to respond and has not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98401 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. Leggett has responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=176948 - 2017-09-21
. Leggett has responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=176948 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
and indemnify No. 2021AP831 2 ProHealth against the claims. Based upon our review of the briefs
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=532488 - 2022-06-15
and indemnify No. 2021AP831 2 ProHealth against the claims. Based upon our review of the briefs
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=532488 - 2022-06-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
, 260, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). Our review of the records and of counsel’s analysis in the no-merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=987074 - 2025-07-22
, 260, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). Our review of the records and of counsel’s analysis in the no-merit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=987074 - 2025-07-22
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=174773 - 2017-09-21
. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=174773 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
be arguable merit to a challenge to Smith’s sentence. Our review of a sentence determination begins
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=368325 - 2021-05-25
be arguable merit to a challenge to Smith’s sentence. Our review of a sentence determination begins
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=368325 - 2021-05-25
[PDF]
State v. Robert T. Langston
filed a no merit report and a supplemental report in reply to Langston’s response.1 Upon our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11318 - 2017-09-19
filed a no merit report and a supplemental report in reply to Langston’s response.1 Upon our
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11318 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion. With regard to Matos-Rodriguez’s guilty pleas, our review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=966766 - 2025-06-10
erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion. With regard to Matos-Rodriguez’s guilty pleas, our review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=966766 - 2025-06-10