Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14201 - 14210 of 30126 for consulta de causas.
Search results 14201 - 14210 of 30126 for consulta de causas.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that we review de novo. See State v. Baron, 2009 WI 58, ¶10, 318 Wis. 2d 60, 769 N.W.2d 34
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=245224 - 2019-08-21
that we review de novo. See State v. Baron, 2009 WI 58, ¶10, 318 Wis. 2d 60, 769 N.W.2d 34
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=245224 - 2019-08-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the statutory requirements is a question of law we review de novo. See K.N.K. v. Buhler, 139 Wis. 2d 190, 198
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=132821 - 2017-09-21
the statutory requirements is a question of law we review de novo. See K.N.K. v. Buhler, 139 Wis. 2d 190, 198
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=132821 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
legal principles and facts of record.” Id. (citation omitted). Carson lobbies for a de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35258 - 2014-09-15
legal principles and facts of record.” Id. (citation omitted). Carson lobbies for a de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35258 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
erroneous standard; next, we review whether the facts meet the legal test for “hardship” de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=73769 - 2014-09-15
erroneous standard; next, we review whether the facts meet the legal test for “hardship” de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=73769 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
). Whether counsel performed deficiently and prejudiced the defendant are questions of law that we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=99032 - 2013-07-09
). Whether counsel performed deficiently and prejudiced the defendant are questions of law that we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=99032 - 2013-07-09
State v. Joseph Allen Hopkins
issue that this court reviews de novo. See State v. Wagner, 191 Wis.2d 322, 328, 528 N.W.2d 85, 87 (Ct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7785 - 2005-03-31
issue that this court reviews de novo. See State v. Wagner, 191 Wis.2d 322, 328, 528 N.W.2d 85, 87 (Ct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7785 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
by the circuit court, is an issue we review de novo. See State v. Guzman, 166 Wis. 2d 577, 586, 480 N.W.2d 446
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59341 - 2011-01-26
by the circuit court, is an issue we review de novo. See State v. Guzman, 166 Wis. 2d 577, 586, 480 N.W.2d 446
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59341 - 2011-01-26
Washington County v. Carl J. Wagner
this court reviews de novo. Chernetski v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 183 Wis. 2d 68, 72, 515 N.W.2d 283
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26373 - 2006-09-05
this court reviews de novo. Chernetski v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 183 Wis. 2d 68, 72, 515 N.W.2d 283
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26373 - 2006-09-05
[PDF]
NOTICE
that Unified may be arguing for a de novo standard of review. We do not address this line of argument because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=55769 - 2014-09-15
that Unified may be arguing for a de novo standard of review. We do not address this line of argument because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=55769 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
established a de facto policy in the District.” ¶18 This argument implicitly assumes that the arbitrator’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31685 - 2014-09-15
established a de facto policy in the District.” ¶18 This argument implicitly assumes that the arbitrator’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31685 - 2014-09-15