Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12141 - 12150 of 30123 for de.
Search results 12141 - 12150 of 30123 for de.
State v. Anthony A. Kasparec
is de novo. State v. Woods, 117 Wis.2d 701, 712, 345 N.W.2d 457, 463 (1984). The record must
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9299 - 2005-03-31
is de novo. State v. Woods, 117 Wis.2d 701, 712, 345 N.W.2d 457, 463 (1984). The record must
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9299 - 2005-03-31
State v. Russell Stokes
determination of whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial is reviewed de novo. Id. at 128
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9219 - 2005-03-31
determination of whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial is reviewed de novo. Id. at 128
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9219 - 2005-03-31
State v. Arthur C. List
interpretation de novo. State v. Campbell, 2002 WI App 20, ¶4, 250 Wis. 2d 238, 642 N.W.2d 230. ¶4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7072 - 2005-03-31
interpretation de novo. State v. Campbell, 2002 WI App 20, ¶4, 250 Wis. 2d 238, 642 N.W.2d 230. ¶4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7072 - 2005-03-31
State v. Joseph P. Bury
). Whether a challenged count is “wholly unrelated” is subject to our de novo review. See State v. Richer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2285 - 2005-03-31
). Whether a challenged count is “wholly unrelated” is subject to our de novo review. See State v. Richer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2285 - 2005-03-31
Charles A. Polesky v. Labor & Industry Review Commission
that should be considered de novo. This is not so. The real issue raised by Polesky’s appeal is whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14007 - 2005-03-31
that should be considered de novo. This is not so. The real issue raised by Polesky’s appeal is whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14007 - 2005-03-31
State v. Maurice Clark
which we decide de novo. See State v. Jankowski, 173 Wis.2d 522, 525, 496 N.W.2d 215, 216 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12328 - 2005-03-31
which we decide de novo. See State v. Jankowski, 173 Wis.2d 522, 525, 496 N.W.2d 215, 216 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12328 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Kemakolam Michael Obasih v. Kanelichi Esther Obasih
. 1986) (property division is discretionary). We do not decide the case de novo.1 ¶4 We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5875 - 2017-09-19
. 1986) (property division is discretionary). We do not decide the case de novo.1 ¶4 We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5875 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, 713 N.W.2d 152. Ordinarily, our review of the application and interpretation of a statute de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107790 - 2017-09-21
, 713 N.W.2d 152. Ordinarily, our review of the application and interpretation of a statute de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107790 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of law that we consider de novo. See Romero- Georgana, 360 Wis. 2d 522, ¶30. Johnson asserted in his
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1070443 - 2026-02-03
of law that we consider de novo. See Romero- Georgana, 360 Wis. 2d 522, ¶30. Johnson asserted in his
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1070443 - 2026-02-03
State v. Todd E. Crider
of law we review de novo. See State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397, 405-06, 565 N.W.2d 506 (1997). ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15465 - 2005-03-31
of law we review de novo. See State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397, 405-06, 565 N.W.2d 506 (1997). ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15465 - 2005-03-31