Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 13661 - 13670 of 30126 for consulta de causas.
Search results 13661 - 13670 of 30126 for consulta de causas.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
De Peters filed the no-merit report. Attorney Olivia Garman was later substituted as appellate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1029613 - 2025-10-28
De Peters filed the no-merit report. Attorney Olivia Garman was later substituted as appellate
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1029613 - 2025-10-28
[PDF]
State v. Gamel S. Hegwood
is ultimately a legal determination, which this court decides de novo. Id. The test for ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5491 - 2017-09-19
is ultimately a legal determination, which this court decides de novo. Id. The test for ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5491 - 2017-09-19
State v. Robert R. Orlebeke
is a constitutional question of law which we review de novo. Id., ¶21. “A defendant who asks for resentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6697 - 2005-03-31
is a constitutional question of law which we review de novo. Id., ¶21. “A defendant who asks for resentencing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6697 - 2005-03-31
State v. Ronald Irvin Ryan
is disputed. Accordingly, our review is de novo. State v. Swiams, 2004 WI App 217, ¶5, 277 Wis. 2d 400, 404
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18127 - 2005-05-24
is disputed. Accordingly, our review is de novo. State v. Swiams, 2004 WI App 217, ¶5, 277 Wis. 2d 400, 404
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18127 - 2005-05-24
State v. Ventae Parrow
to be reviewed de novo by this court. See id. Discussion Parrow’s two arguments
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14987 - 2005-03-31
to be reviewed de novo by this court. See id. Discussion Parrow’s two arguments
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14987 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
. DISCUSSION ¶4 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, employing the same methodology
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98255 - 2013-06-17
. DISCUSSION ¶4 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, employing the same methodology
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98255 - 2013-06-17
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 12, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of ...
the motion. This appeal followed. ¶3 We review de novo the trial court’s determination
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27380 - 2006-12-11
the motion. This appeal followed. ¶3 We review de novo the trial court’s determination
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27380 - 2006-12-11
State v. Karem Scott
with the mandates of the Fourth Amendment de novo. State v. Harris, ___ Wis.2d ___, ___, 557 N.W.2d 245, 248 (1996
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10667 - 2005-03-31
with the mandates of the Fourth Amendment de novo. State v. Harris, ___ Wis.2d ___, ___, 557 N.W.2d 245, 248 (1996
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10667 - 2005-03-31
Thomas Konkel v. Town of Elba Town Board
(1976) (citations omitted). We examine the record de novo and do not defer to the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10913 - 2005-03-31
(1976) (citations omitted). We examine the record de novo and do not defer to the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10913 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
N.W.2d 153. The methodology and standards establishing our de novo review of a trial court’s grant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52619 - 2014-09-15
N.W.2d 153. The methodology and standards establishing our de novo review of a trial court’s grant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52619 - 2014-09-15