Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 13281 - 13290 of 30115 for de.
Search results 13281 - 13290 of 30115 for de.
Donna Walag v. Town of Randall
., a question of statutory construction which presents a question of law that we review de novo. See Walag v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11576 - 2007-10-01
., a question of statutory construction which presents a question of law that we review de novo. See Walag v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11576 - 2007-10-01
Sandra J. Nix v. Broy Company Manufacturing & Sales, Inc.
de novo, independent of the trial court's determination. Id. We examine the record to determine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9168 - 2005-03-31
de novo, independent of the trial court's determination. Id. We examine the record to determine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9168 - 2005-03-31
State v. Brent L. Miller
the arresting officer could have obtained a breath test instead. We decide the issue de novo, owing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15991 - 2010-08-02
the arresting officer could have obtained a breath test instead. We decide the issue de novo, owing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15991 - 2010-08-02
COURT OF APPEALS
. ¶6 We review a circuit court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Hardy v. Hoefferle, 2007 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=142982 - 2015-06-10
. ¶6 We review a circuit court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Hardy v. Hoefferle, 2007 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=142982 - 2015-06-10
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
State v. Jeffrey A. Huck
]he ultimate determination of whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial” de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15524 - 2005-03-31
]he ultimate determination of whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial” de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15524 - 2005-03-31
State v. Jonathon R. Torres
review de novo, without deference to the trial court. State v. Michels, 150 Wis. 2d 94, 97, 441 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6100 - 2005-03-31
review de novo, without deference to the trial court. State v. Michels, 150 Wis. 2d 94, 97, 441 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6100 - 2005-03-31
2008 WI APP 28
, statutory construction is a question of law subject to de novo review. State v. Cole, 2000 WI App 52, ¶3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31679 - 2008-03-05
, statutory construction is a question of law subject to de novo review. State v. Cole, 2000 WI App 52, ¶3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31679 - 2008-03-05
State v. Jerry C.O.
reviews de novo. See Ornelas v. U.S., 116 S. Ct. 1657, 1651 (1996). Further, an appellate court may
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11213 - 2005-03-31
reviews de novo. See Ornelas v. U.S., 116 S. Ct. 1657, 1651 (1996). Further, an appellate court may
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11213 - 2005-03-31
State v. Raymond Massie
of law which we review de novo. See id. Massie generally claims that his trial counsel left him
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13922 - 2005-03-31
of law which we review de novo. See id. Massie generally claims that his trial counsel left him
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13922 - 2005-03-31