Ads
related to: civil claim judgement example cases report in wisconsincourtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
legal.thomsonreuters.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
checksecrets.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
lawdepot.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
On December 1, 2020, Bill Feehan, the La Crosse County Republican Party chairman, filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission in federal court. [44] The plaintiffs, represented by conservative lawyer Sidney Powell, claimed that Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, companies that provide voting software and hardware across the U.S., were used to conduct electronic ballot ...
The Court considered another case, Feehan et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission et al., though in December 2020 Sidney Powell filed an emergency petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking an extraordinary writ of mandamus for intervention in the case. The petition was denied without comment on March 1, 2021, ending the matter.
Nash-Finch Co., 404 U.S. 138, 144, 92 S.Ct. 373, 377, 30 L.Ed.2d 328 (1971). 4 Concededly this inquiry was not made in 1949 in the so-called Briggs-Stratton case, Automobile Workers v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Board, 336 U.S. 245, 69 S.Ct. 516, 93 L.Ed. 651 (1949), the decision of this Court heavily relied upon by the court below in reaching its ...
A Wisconsin judge on Thursday allowed a civil lawsuit filed against 10 fake electors for former President Donald Trump and two of his attorneys to proceed, rejecting a move to dismiss the case.
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access is a website that provides access to some circuit courts records of Wisconsin. The website displays the case information entered into the Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP) case management system by court staff in the counties where the case files are located. The court record summaries provided by the ...
The Court found that Wrigley’s activities in Wisconsin exceeded the provisions of the state code and allowed the imposition of the tax. [3] The Court ruled that the replacement of stale gum, "agency stock checks", and maintenance of inventory for those purposes were not protected, and the Court sided with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.