Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14121 - 14130 of 30150 for consulta de causas.
Search results 14121 - 14130 of 30150 for consulta de causas.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
from a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=342440 - 2021-03-04
from a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=342440 - 2021-03-04
State v. James W.
“clearly erroneous” standard in a termination-of-parental-rights case). We review de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25338 - 2006-05-30
“clearly erroneous” standard in a termination-of-parental-rights case). We review de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25338 - 2006-05-30
COURT OF APPEALS
a plea withdrawal motion without an evidentiary hearing under the de novo standard, independently
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=48465 - 2010-03-31
a plea withdrawal motion without an evidentiary hearing under the de novo standard, independently
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=48465 - 2010-03-31
State v. Ryan C. Rumlow
is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Id. at 137-38. DISCUSSION ¶9 On appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3397 - 2005-03-31
is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Id. at 137-38. DISCUSSION ¶9 On appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3397 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of law that we review de novo. See State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, ¶16, 253 Wis. 2d 38, 644 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=91764 - 2014-09-15
of law that we review de novo. See State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, ¶16, 253 Wis. 2d 38, 644 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=91764 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
.2d 414. Such review is not de novo. See id. On appeal to this court, we apply the same standard
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=208821 - 2018-02-21
.2d 414. Such review is not de novo. See id. On appeal to this court, we apply the same standard
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=208821 - 2018-02-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the motion alleges sufficient facts is a question of law this court reviews de novo. See Booker, 270 Wis
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194534 - 2017-09-21
the motion alleges sufficient facts is a question of law this court reviews de novo. See Booker, 270 Wis
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194534 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Ericka Clark v. Devin R. Mudge, M.D.
court’s discretionary determination involving a question of law, we review the question of law de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14980 - 2017-09-21
court’s discretionary determination involving a question of law, we review the question of law de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14980 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Marcia Fenner v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
excluded coverage for these damages. ¶4 Our standard of review on coverage questions is de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14933 - 2017-09-21
excluded coverage for these damages. ¶4 Our standard of review on coverage questions is de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14933 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Donna Sue Spielman v. Jeffrey Allen Spielman
the correct legal standard is a question of law that we review de novo. Nottelson v. DILHR, 94 Wis. 2d 106
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3030 - 2017-09-19
the correct legal standard is a question of law that we review de novo. Nottelson v. DILHR, 94 Wis. 2d 106
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3030 - 2017-09-19