Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 12981 - 12990 of 30012 for consulta de causas.
Search results 12981 - 12990 of 30012 for consulta de causas.
State v. David L.W.
review de novo. State v. Michels, 141 Wis.2d 81, 87, 414 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Ct. App. 1987
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12151 - 2005-03-31
review de novo. State v. Michels, 141 Wis.2d 81, 87, 414 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Ct. App. 1987
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12151 - 2005-03-31
State v. Bernhardt C. Thompson
was in violation of §§ 939.62 and 973.12, Stats., is a question of law which we decide de novo. See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15442 - 2005-03-31
was in violation of §§ 939.62 and 973.12, Stats., is a question of law which we decide de novo. See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15442 - 2005-03-31
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
[PDF]
State v. Craig J. Anderson
, which this court decides de novo. Id. at 634, 369 N.W.2d at 715. To prove deficient performance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12555 - 2017-09-21
, which this court decides de novo. Id. at 634, 369 N.W.2d at 715. To prove deficient performance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12555 - 2017-09-21
John P. Livesey, Sr. v. Aurora Health Care, Inc.
an issue of law which we review de novo by applying the same standards employed by the trial court. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11967 - 2005-03-31
an issue of law which we review de novo by applying the same standards employed by the trial court. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11967 - 2005-03-31
Gordon Ahlgren v. Pierce County
to interpret § 70.27(4), Stats. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9449 - 2005-03-31
to interpret § 70.27(4), Stats. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9449 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
are procedurally barred is a question of law we review de novo. See id., ¶14. ¶5 In his postconviction motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197488 - 2017-10-10
are procedurally barred is a question of law we review de novo. See id., ¶14. ¶5 In his postconviction motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197488 - 2017-10-10
[PDF]
State v. Karen A.O.
. APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Waupaca County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Reversed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9932 - 2017-09-19
. APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Waupaca County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Reversed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9932 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Karen A.O.
. APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Waupaca County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Reversed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9931 - 2017-09-19
. APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Waupaca County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Reversed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9931 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Fred W. Schmelzle v. Ken Ade
to a “practice” hearing before a court commissioner before trying the case de novo before the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14029 - 2014-09-15
to a “practice” hearing before a court commissioner before trying the case de novo before the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14029 - 2014-09-15