Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1111 - 1120 of 29823 for des.
Search results 1111 - 1120 of 29823 for des.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
from orders of the circuit court for Outagamie County: JOHN DES JARDINS, Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=63393 - 2014-09-15
from orders of the circuit court for Outagamie County: JOHN DES JARDINS, Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=63393 - 2014-09-15
State v. Kenneth C. Luedke
. APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Outagamie County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Reversed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10706 - 2015-07-09
. APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Outagamie County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Reversed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10706 - 2015-07-09
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, which are questions of law subject to de novo review. See State v. Smith, 2009 WI App 16, ¶4, 316 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=79461 - 2014-09-15
, which are questions of law subject to de novo review. See State v. Smith, 2009 WI App 16, ¶4, 316 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=79461 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
for a trial de novo in the circuit court. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Puccettis. Applying CCS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35314 - 2009-01-27
for a trial de novo in the circuit court. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Puccettis. Applying CCS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35314 - 2009-01-27
Ernest J. Pagels, Jr. v. John Vargas
Vargas’ and Jessica Vargas’ failure to appear at a de novo hearing was the result of excusable neglect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6435 - 2005-06-18
Vargas’ and Jessica Vargas’ failure to appear at a de novo hearing was the result of excusable neglect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6435 - 2005-06-18
[PDF]
Spickler Enterprises, Ltd. v. Department of Revenue
the Commission’s decision and order de novo, applying the same standard of review as the trial court, but owing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12220 - 2017-09-21
the Commission’s decision and order de novo, applying the same standard of review as the trial court, but owing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12220 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI APP 65
to a judgment as a matter of law.” WIS. STAT. RULE 802.08(2). We review de novo a circuit court’s rulings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=81713 - 2014-09-15
to a judgment as a matter of law.” WIS. STAT. RULE 802.08(2). We review de novo a circuit court’s rulings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=81713 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of law.” WIS. STAT. § 802.08(2). This court’s “standard of review on summary judgment is de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=767943 - 2024-02-22
of law.” WIS. STAT. § 802.08(2). This court’s “standard of review on summary judgment is de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=767943 - 2024-02-22
[PDF]
Frontsheet
747. We review the referee's conclusions of law de novo. Id. ¶18 Our rules require an attorney
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=113750 - 2017-09-21
747. We review the referee's conclusions of law de novo. Id. ¶18 Our rules require an attorney
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=113750 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
de novo. Id., 2006 WI 66, ¶9, 291 Wis. 2d at 185, 717 N.W.2d at 3. ¶9 As noted, although
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=56991 - 2014-09-15
de novo. Id., 2006 WI 66, ¶9, 291 Wis. 2d at 185, 717 N.W.2d at 3. ¶9 As noted, although
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=56991 - 2014-09-15