Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12351 - 12360 of 30123 for de.
Search results 12351 - 12360 of 30123 for de.
State v. Leonard Bendlin
of the trial court’s determination that Bendlin was “in custody” is de novo. See State v. Clappes, 136 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13630 - 2005-03-31
of the trial court’s determination that Bendlin was “in custody” is de novo. See State v. Clappes, 136 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13630 - 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
Aaron Ben Woods v. Kenneth Morgan
action, we apply a de novo standard to issues of law. See State ex rel. McMillian v. Dickey, 132 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13514 - 2005-03-31
action, we apply a de novo standard to issues of law. See State ex rel. McMillian v. Dickey, 132 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13514 - 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
COURT OF APPEALS
affected the support determination. In any event, we would regard any such error as de minimis. [3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41259 - 2009-09-21
affected the support determination. In any event, we would regard any such error as de minimis. [3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41259 - 2009-09-21
[PDF]
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Donald J. Harman
adopt them. However, after our de novo review of the referee's conclusions of law, see In re
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18712 - 2017-09-21
adopt them. However, after our de novo review of the referee's conclusions of law, see In re
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18712 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of law for de novo review. Winnebago Cty. v. Christopher S., 2016 WI 1, ¶50, 366 Wis. 2d 1, __ N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=163891 - 2017-09-21
of law for de novo review. Winnebago Cty. v. Christopher S., 2016 WI 1, ¶50, 366 Wis. 2d 1, __ N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=163891 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
LaVerne Swanson v. Ronald W. Nelson
the verdict is a question of law we review de novo. See Weiss v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 197 Wis.2d 365, 388
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10954 - 2017-09-19
the verdict is a question of law we review de novo. See Weiss v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 197 Wis.2d 365, 388
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10954 - 2017-09-19