Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 13391 - 13400 of 30115 for de.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
de novo on appeal. Clean Wis., Inc. v. DNR, 2021 WI 72, ¶10, 398 Wis. 2d 433, 961 N.W.2d 611
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=949406 - 2025-05-01

[PDF] Marcia K. Johnson v. Community Credit Plan, Inc.
is a question of law subject to de novo review. See State ex rel. R.G. v. W.M.B., 159 Wis.2d 662, 666
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13513 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] WI APP 133
“The interpretation of a written contract is a question of law that we review de novo.” Tang v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=69125 - 2014-09-15

City of Madison v. State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development
that arises in reviewing whether the circuit court applied a proper legal standard is subject to de novo
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16527 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Heier's Trucking, Inc. v. Waupaca County Solid Waste Management Board
for Waupaca County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Affirmed. Before Vergeront, Deininger and Nowakowski,1 JJ
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12694 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
. This is a question of constitutional fact we review de novo. See State v. Miller, 2002 WI App 197, ¶44, 257 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=175586 - 2017-09-21

State v. George Melvin Taylor
is essential for a successful Batson challenge. ¶19 Taylor urges us to employ a de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6560 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] ¶2015 WI APP 66
we address de novo. State v. Adams, 152 Wis. 2d 68, 74, 447 N.W.2d 90 (Ct. App. 1989
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145361 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
review summary judgment de novo, applying the same method as the circuit court. Green Spring Farms v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=211024 - 2018-04-12

State v. Robert M. Madsen
counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial de novo. Id. ¶15 Madsen argues he was denied
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5398 - 2005-03-31