Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12301 - 12310 of 30131 for de.
Search results 12301 - 12310 of 30131 for de.
[PDF]
State v. Wayne Cornelius
the State’s claim that these theories were never presented to the jury. An appeal is not a trial de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18658 - 2017-09-21
the State’s claim that these theories were never presented to the jury. An appeal is not a trial de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18658 - 2017-09-21
State v. Michael G. Costigan
facts satisfy the constitutional requirements presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8904 - 2005-03-31
facts satisfy the constitutional requirements presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8904 - 2005-03-31
Thomas R. Leske v. John A. Leske
, 294 N.W.2d 473, 476-77 (1980), and need not be repeated. We apply the same methodology de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7719 - 2005-03-31
, 294 N.W.2d 473, 476-77 (1980), and need not be repeated. We apply the same methodology de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7719 - 2005-03-31
State v. Oscar A. Rash
; whether a restitution order comports with the statute, however, is subject to our de novo review. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5093 - 2005-03-31
; whether a restitution order comports with the statute, however, is subject to our de novo review. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5093 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
, which we review de novo. Id. ¶9 We first address the issue of the protective sweep. [A] law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34862 - 2008-12-10
, which we review de novo. Id. ¶9 We first address the issue of the protective sweep. [A] law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34862 - 2008-12-10
COURT OF APPEALS
without a hearing. Ibid. We review de novo whether a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=94401 - 2013-03-25
without a hearing. Ibid. We review de novo whether a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=94401 - 2013-03-25
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
on the motion. State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶9, 274 Wis. 2d 568, 682 N.W.2d 433. We review de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=923140 - 2025-03-05
on the motion. State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶9, 274 Wis. 2d 568, 682 N.W.2d 433. We review de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=923140 - 2025-03-05
State v. James R. Bolstad
of the parties." State v. Prince, 147 Wis.2d 134, 136, 432 N.W.2d 646, 647 (Ct. App. 1988). We review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8485 - 2005-03-31
of the parties." State v. Prince, 147 Wis.2d 134, 136, 432 N.W.2d 646, 647 (Ct. App. 1988). We review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8485 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Tyeshawn D. Cohens
of Cohens’ 2000 drug dealing had a de minimus effect on the jury because of the overwhelming evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6543 - 2017-09-19
of Cohens’ 2000 drug dealing had a de minimus effect on the jury because of the overwhelming evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6543 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
NOTICE
that we review de novo. Id. ¶7 To prove counsel’s deficiency, Cason must show that “‘counsel made
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32730 - 2014-09-15
that we review de novo. Id. ¶7 To prove counsel’s deficiency, Cason must show that “‘counsel made
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32730 - 2014-09-15