Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1301 - 1310 of 30072 for de.
Search results 1301 - 1310 of 30072 for de.
State v. Charles Jasper, Jr.
we review de novo. Id. “[I]f the defendant fails to allege sufficient facts in his motion to raise
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2440 - 2005-03-31
we review de novo. Id. “[I]f the defendant fails to allege sufficient facts in his motion to raise
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2440 - 2005-03-31
State v. Kevin N. Dornbrook
to be applied is de novo, citing to State v. Shanks, 152 Wis. 2d 284, 448 N.W.2d 264 (Ct. App. 1989). The court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15176 - 2005-03-31
to be applied is de novo, citing to State v. Shanks, 152 Wis. 2d 284, 448 N.W.2d 264 (Ct. App. 1989). The court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15176 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
costs, bringing the total amount owed to $1803.34. Nierenberger then requested a trial de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102985 - 2013-10-14
costs, bringing the total amount owed to $1803.34. Nierenberger then requested a trial de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102985 - 2013-10-14
COURT OF APPEALS
is not entitled to relief’” is a legal question that we review de novo. State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78581 - 2012-03-07
is not entitled to relief’” is a legal question that we review de novo. State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78581 - 2012-03-07
State v. Ronald Leroy Beilke
entitle the defendant to relief is a question of law, which we review de novo. Id. [I]f the defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12430 - 2013-05-28
entitle the defendant to relief is a question of law, which we review de novo. Id. [I]f the defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12430 - 2013-05-28
Lakisha Dahm v. City of Milwaukee
, is entitled to the pension. As noted, the trial court disagreed. II. ¶4 We review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20310 - 2006-01-09
, is entitled to the pension. As noted, the trial court disagreed. II. ¶4 We review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20310 - 2006-01-09
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=249753 - 2019-11-07
a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=249753 - 2019-11-07
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that the defendant is not entitled to relief’” is a legal question that we review de novo. State v. Bentley, 201
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=78581 - 2014-09-15
that the defendant is not entitled to relief’” is a legal question that we review de novo. State v. Bentley, 201
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=78581 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
a demand for a trial de novo in the circuit court. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Puccettis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35314 - 2014-09-15
a demand for a trial de novo in the circuit court. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Puccettis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35314 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded with directions. Before
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30501 - 2014-09-15
for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded with directions. Before
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30501 - 2014-09-15