Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12791 - 12800 of 30150 for consulta de causas.
Search results 12791 - 12800 of 30150 for consulta de causas.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that this court decides de novo. WIS. STAT. § 805.17(2); State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d 628, 633-34, 369 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=141758 - 2017-09-21
that this court decides de novo. WIS. STAT. § 805.17(2); State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d 628, 633-34, 369 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=141758 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
reviews de novo. The [trial] court must hold an evidentiary hearing if the defendant’s motion raises
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=190421 - 2017-09-21
reviews de novo. The [trial] court must hold an evidentiary hearing if the defendant’s motion raises
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=190421 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
appeals. We review the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and we apply the same
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=258448 - 2020-04-22
appeals. We review the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and we apply the same
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=258448 - 2020-04-22
City of Milwaukee v. Sammie L. Glass
that this court decides de novo. See Spence v. Cooke, 222 Wis. 2d 530, 536, 587 N.W.2d 904 (Ct. App. 1998
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15972 - 2005-03-31
that this court decides de novo. See Spence v. Cooke, 222 Wis. 2d 530, 536, 587 N.W.2d 904 (Ct. App. 1998
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15972 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
. § 893.80(1)(a). This appeal followed. ¶9 This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84063 - 2012-06-26
. § 893.80(1)(a). This appeal followed. ¶9 This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84063 - 2012-06-26
[PDF]
NOTICE
court’s findings of historical fact under the deferential clearly erroneous standard, but review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=53009 - 2014-09-15
court’s findings of historical fact under the deferential clearly erroneous standard, but review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=53009 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Aaron Ben Woods v. Kenneth Morgan
). In reviewing a habeas action, we apply a de novo standard to issues of law. See State ex rel. McMillian v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13514 - 2017-09-21
). In reviewing a habeas action, we apply a de novo standard to issues of law. See State ex rel. McMillian v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13514 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. § 802.08(2). Summary judgment decisions are subject to de novo review. Metropolitan Ventures, LLC v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=103820 - 2017-09-21
. § 802.08(2). Summary judgment decisions are subject to de novo review. Metropolitan Ventures, LLC v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=103820 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard, but we review de novo whether counsel’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=302086 - 2020-11-11
factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard, but we review de novo whether counsel’s
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=302086 - 2020-11-11
[PDF]
La Crosse County Department of Human Services v. Debra J.A.
that we review de novo. See Darlene R., 201 Wis. 2d at 639. ¶8 We conclude that the trial court did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2189 - 2017-09-19
that we review de novo. See Darlene R., 201 Wis. 2d at 639. ¶8 We conclude that the trial court did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2189 - 2017-09-19