Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11001 - 11010 of 30165 for de.

[PDF] Dunn County v. Kelly D.
. § 48.29, a question of law this court reviews de novo. See State v. Kywanda F., 200 Wis. 2d 26, 32-33
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3126 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] NOTICE
) No. 2006AP1100 4 facts is a question of law for our de novo review. Ansani v. Cascade Mountain, Inc
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28270 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] City of Appleton v. Paul D. Wink
facts meet a legal standard is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. See Bahr v. State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15760 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Sherry Mulligan v. Barbara J. Koehler
of law de novo. The determination to be made in this case is whether § 100.20(5) attorney fees
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10417 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
grant of summary judgment de novo, and we apply the same methodology employed by the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=237338 - 2019-03-20

[PDF] Western Wisconsin Camp Association v. National Spiritualist Association of Churches
judgments de novo, using the same methodology applied in the trial court. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2959 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
reviews de novo. Teske v. Wilson Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 WI 62, ¶20, 387 Wis. 2d 213, 928 N.W.2d 555. We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=350865 - 2021-03-30

State v. Michael W. Slinker
. Whether a new factor exists presents a question of law we review de novo. State v. Scaccio, 2000 WI App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3938 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
to perform an investigative stop presents a question of constitutional fact, subject to de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=53243 - 2010-08-11

COURT OF APPEALS
is a question of law we review de novo. See Stary, 187 Wis. 2d at 269. ¶9 Roemer-Rutter, proceeding pro
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31088 - 2007-12-05