Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 13141 - 13150 of 30136 for consulta de causas.
Search results 13141 - 13150 of 30136 for consulta de causas.
Margaret Lamkin v. St. Croix County
and dismissed her complaint. Our review of summary judgment is de novo. We apply
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10088 - 2009-08-25
and dismissed her complaint. Our review of summary judgment is de novo. We apply
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10088 - 2009-08-25
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of law that we consider de novo. See Romero- Georgana, 360 Wis. 2d 522, ¶30. Johnson asserted in his
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1070443 - 2026-02-03
of law that we consider de novo. See Romero- Georgana, 360 Wis. 2d 522, ¶30. Johnson asserted in his
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1070443 - 2026-02-03
City of New Berlin v. William P. Servi
the challenge is to the court’s application of the implied consent to those facts, our review is de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26568 - 2006-09-26
the challenge is to the court’s application of the implied consent to those facts, our review is de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26568 - 2006-09-26
State v. Andrew D. Wielunski
standards of review. Wielunski argues that this court's review is de novo because a question of law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14794 - 2015-06-23
standards of review. Wielunski argues that this court's review is de novo because a question of law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14794 - 2015-06-23
State v. Billy J. Doudna
Whether undisputed facts violate a constitutional standard presents a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6406 - 2005-03-31
Whether undisputed facts violate a constitutional standard presents a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6406 - 2005-03-31
State v. Todd E. Crider
of law we review de novo. See State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397, 405-06, 565 N.W.2d 506 (1997). ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15465 - 2005-03-31
of law we review de novo. See State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397, 405-06, 565 N.W.2d 506 (1997). ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15465 - 2005-03-31
State v. David M. Beasley
was deficient and whether it prejudiced the defendant's defense are questions of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8155 - 2005-03-31
was deficient and whether it prejudiced the defendant's defense are questions of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8155 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
discussion below. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7 This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=81567 - 2012-04-25
discussion below. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7 This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=81567 - 2012-04-25
[PDF]
NOTICE
of law which we review de novo. State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d 628, 634, 369 N.W.2d 711 (1985
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33744 - 2014-09-15
of law which we review de novo. State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d 628, 634, 369 N.W.2d 711 (1985
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33744 - 2014-09-15
State v. Sandra L. Barrette
.2d 119, 132, 454 N.W.2d 780, 785 (1990). The standard of review is not de novo, but rather gives
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12918 - 2005-03-31
.2d 119, 132, 454 N.W.2d 780, 785 (1990). The standard of review is not de novo, but rather gives
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12918 - 2005-03-31