Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1381 - 1390 of 29810 for des.
Search results 1381 - 1390 of 29810 for des.
[PDF]
State v. Romaine A. Langham
of the material statute as applied to facts that no one disputes. Thus, our review is de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25668 - 2017-09-21
of the material statute as applied to facts that no one disputes. Thus, our review is de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25668 - 2017-09-21
State v. Allan D. Schopper
the court commissioner who concluded that the refusal was unreasonable. Schopper made a request for a de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11672 - 2005-03-31
the court commissioner who concluded that the refusal was unreasonable. Schopper made a request for a de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11672 - 2005-03-31
Lori L. Fleig v. Patrick A. Fleig
. Whether the change is substantial is a question of law that we review de novo, “[b]ut, because this legal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2808 - 2005-03-31
. Whether the change is substantial is a question of law that we review de novo, “[b]ut, because this legal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2808 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Donald R. Riddle
principles to those facts is a question of law that we decide de novo. State v. Patricia A.P., 195 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4967 - 2017-09-19
principles to those facts is a question of law that we decide de novo. State v. Patricia A.P., 195 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4967 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Allan D. Schopper
who concluded that the refusal was unreasonable. Schopper made a request for a de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11672 - 2017-09-19
who concluded that the refusal was unreasonable. Schopper made a request for a de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11672 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
not “reflect any discernible exercise of discretion,” we will apply a de novo standard of review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=112697 - 2017-09-21
not “reflect any discernible exercise of discretion,” we will apply a de novo standard of review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=112697 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Peter J. Steen v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
and the interpretation of [§ 632.32(4), STATS.] … present questions of law” subject to de novo review. Hull, 222 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12129 - 2017-09-21
and the interpretation of [§ 632.32(4), STATS.] … present questions of law” subject to de novo review. Hull, 222 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12129 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Harold Carlson Trust v. St. Croix County
a summary judgment, we perform the same function as the trial court and our review is de novo. See Green
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2539 - 2017-09-19
a summary judgment, we perform the same function as the trial court and our review is de novo. See Green
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2539 - 2017-09-19
Montel Horton v. Gary Mccaughtry
is therefore de novo. Reel Enters. v. City of La Crosse, 146 Wis.2d 662, 667, 431 N.W.2d 743, 746 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8123 - 2005-03-31
is therefore de novo. Reel Enters. v. City of La Crosse, 146 Wis.2d 662, 667, 431 N.W.2d 743, 746 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8123 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. Whether a defendant made a sufficient showing is a question of law that we review de novo. Id., ¶20
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=243860 - 2019-07-24
. Whether a defendant made a sufficient showing is a question of law that we review de novo. Id., ¶20
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=243860 - 2019-07-24