Ads
related to: civil claim judgement example cases report in wisconsin freecourtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ 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
Case history; Prior: On writ of certiorari to the Wisconsin Supreme Court: Holding; The union's concerted refusal to work overtime was peaceful conduct constituting activity that must be free of state regulation if the congressional intent in enacting the comprehensive federal law of labor relations is not to be frustrated.
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 ...
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 ...
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.
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.
On November 29, 1996, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in Southworth v. Grebe granted summary judgment in favor of the three law students. The district court ruled that the fee system violated the students' free-speech rights by compelling them to fund speech they disagreed with.