Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12751 - 12760 of 30169 for consulta de causas.
Search results 12751 - 12760 of 30169 for consulta de causas.
State v. Shelbie Sue Schultz
which this court decides de novo. Sanchez, 201 Wis.2d at 236-37, 548 N.W.2d at 76
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12429 - 2005-03-31
which this court decides de novo. Sanchez, 201 Wis.2d at 236-37, 548 N.W.2d at 76
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12429 - 2005-03-31
State v. Susan J. Seim
was deficient or whether the defense was prejudiced are questions of law that this court decides de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12428 - 2005-03-31
was deficient or whether the defense was prejudiced are questions of law that this court decides de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12428 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
requires an explicit finding of unfitness is a question of law subject to de novo review. See Seider v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149701 - 2017-09-21
requires an explicit finding of unfitness is a question of law subject to de novo review. See Seider v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149701 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Douglas E. Smith
). Whether a defendant does so is a question of law that we review de novo. See id., 201 Wis. 2d at 310
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4933 - 2017-09-19
). Whether a defendant does so is a question of law that we review de novo. See id., 201 Wis. 2d at 310
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4933 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of a statute de novo. See WIS. STAT. § 227.57(11) (2019-20) (“Upon review of an No. 2020AP406 4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=363708 - 2021-05-06
of a statute de novo. See WIS. STAT. § 227.57(11) (2019-20) (“Upon review of an No. 2020AP406 4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=363708 - 2021-05-06
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 15, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of ...
as undisputed; the application of the law to such facts is a question of law that we review de novo. See City
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27119 - 2006-11-14
as undisputed; the application of the law to such facts is a question of law that we review de novo. See City
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27119 - 2006-11-14
Mary Ann Strnad v. Edward Strnad
that it was subject to division under Wis. Stat. § 767.255. We reject Edward’s “de minimus” argument.[4] Therefore
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4220 - 2005-03-31
that it was subject to division under Wis. Stat. § 767.255. We reject Edward’s “de minimus” argument.[4] Therefore
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4220 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
circumstances. We decide de novo whether those facts pass constitutional muster. See State v. Jerrell C.J
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32296 - 2008-03-31
circumstances. We decide de novo whether those facts pass constitutional muster. See State v. Jerrell C.J
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32296 - 2008-03-31
Ruth Ann Hackman v. First Bank Southeast of Lake Geneva, N.A.
judgment, we apply the same methodology as the trial court and decide de novo whether summary judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10952 - 2005-03-31
judgment, we apply the same methodology as the trial court and decide de novo whether summary judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10952 - 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