Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 10881 - 10890 of 30172 for de.
Search results 10881 - 10890 of 30172 for de.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
review de novo. Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut, 2004 WI 79, ¶7, 273 Wis. 2d 76, 681 N.W.2d 190
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1075753 - 2026-02-11
review de novo. Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut, 2004 WI 79, ¶7, 273 Wis. 2d 76, 681 N.W.2d 190
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1075753 - 2026-02-11
State v. Brent R. Reed
answer would be were we to decide the issue de novo. ¶10 We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26248 - 2006-08-16
answer would be were we to decide the issue de novo. ¶10 We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26248 - 2006-08-16
State v. Kathleen A. Krogman
case. This is a question of law that we review de novo. See Olen v. Phelps, 200 Wis.2d 155, 160, 546
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13295 - 2005-03-31
case. This is a question of law that we review de novo. See Olen v. Phelps, 200 Wis.2d 155, 160, 546
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13295 - 2005-03-31
State v. Eric A. Paarmann
). Application of the facts to constitutional principles is a question of law subject to de novo review. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13294 - 2005-03-31
). Application of the facts to constitutional principles is a question of law subject to de novo review. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13294 - 2005-03-31
Nate A. Lindell v. Matthew Frank
is a question of law, which we review de novo. See State ex rel. Treat v. Puckett, 2002 WI App 58, ¶9, 252 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26482 - 2006-09-13
is a question of law, which we review de novo. See State ex rel. Treat v. Puckett, 2002 WI App 58, ¶9, 252 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26482 - 2006-09-13
State v. Jeffrey J. Jacobsen
of this argument. ¶5 Jacobsen asserts that the standard of review is de novo, and the State does
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7006 - 2005-03-31
of this argument. ¶5 Jacobsen asserts that the standard of review is de novo, and the State does
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7006 - 2005-03-31
Douglas Dahlin, Jr. v. James B. Dahlin
), which we decide de novo, owing no deference to the circuit court’s conclusions. Rock Lake Estates Unit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16124 - 2005-03-31
), which we decide de novo, owing no deference to the circuit court’s conclusions. Rock Lake Estates Unit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16124 - 2005-03-31
State v. Charlene Cortes
a defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de novo. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 310
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3221 - 2005-03-31
a defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de novo. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 310
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3221 - 2005-03-31
State v. David G. Adler
which this court will review de novo. Id. Therefore, we will independently determine whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12245 - 2005-03-31
which this court will review de novo. Id. Therefore, we will independently determine whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12245 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
James D. Luedtke v. David H. Schwarz
Moreover, “certiorari is not a de novo review.” Van Ermen v. DHSS, 84 Wis.2d 57, 64, 267 N.W.2d 17, 20
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10070 - 2017-09-19
Moreover, “certiorari is not a de novo review.” Van Ermen v. DHSS, 84 Wis.2d 57, 64, 267 N.W.2d 17, 20
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10070 - 2017-09-19