Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14271 - 14280 of 30142 for consulta de causas.
Search results 14271 - 14280 of 30142 for consulta de causas.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
supports the legal standard for protective placement is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=103934 - 2017-09-21
supports the legal standard for protective placement is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=103934 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
retained competency, is a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Waukesha County v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36121 - 2009-04-08
retained competency, is a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Waukesha County v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36121 - 2009-04-08
County of Ashland v. John J. Jaakkola
had probable cause is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. State v. Babbitt, 188 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9065 - 2005-03-31
had probable cause is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. State v. Babbitt, 188 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9065 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous; however, we review de novo the application
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=485785 - 2022-02-22
court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous; however, we review de novo the application
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=485785 - 2022-02-22
[PDF]
State v. Russell Stokes
was deficient and prejudicial is reviewed de novo. Id. at 128, 448 N.W.2d at 848. In applying the two
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9219 - 2017-09-19
was deficient and prejudicial is reviewed de novo. Id. at 128, 448 N.W.2d at 848. In applying the two
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9219 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Dorothy McGrane v. John O'Brien
summary judgment decisions de novo, using the same well-known methodology as the circuit court. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=24800 - 2017-09-21
summary judgment decisions de novo, using the same well-known methodology as the circuit court. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=24800 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, and apply these statutes to undisputed facts. This is a question of law, which we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=113843 - 2017-09-21
, and apply these statutes to undisputed facts. This is a question of law, which we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=113843 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. § 961.41(1x) is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. See State v. Smith, 189 Wis. 2d 496
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=137813 - 2017-09-21
. § 961.41(1x) is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. See State v. Smith, 189 Wis. 2d 496
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=137813 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Jeffrey A. Huck
“[t]he ultimate determination of whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial” de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15522 - 2017-09-21
“[t]he ultimate determination of whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial” de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15522 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI APP 260
review de novo. State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397, 405-06, 565 N.W.2d 506 (1997). Discussion ¶5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26674 - 2014-09-15
review de novo. State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397, 405-06, 565 N.W.2d 506 (1997). Discussion ¶5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26674 - 2014-09-15