Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14281 - 14290 of 30191 for de.
Search results 14281 - 14290 of 30191 for de.
State of Wisconsin ex rel., v. David H. Schwarz
of certiorari presents an issue of statutory interpretation, a question of law which we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16193 - 2005-03-31
of certiorari presents an issue of statutory interpretation, a question of law which we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16193 - 2005-03-31
Elaine C. Socha v. James Socha
reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo and employs the same methodology as the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9202 - 2005-03-31
reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo and employs the same methodology as the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9202 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
to previously assert the claim present questions of law we review de novo. State v. Kletzien, 2011 WI App 22
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=748037 - 2024-01-10
to previously assert the claim present questions of law we review de novo. State v. Kletzien, 2011 WI App 22
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=748037 - 2024-01-10
County of Jefferson v. James I. Krause
facts is a question of law which we review de novo. Trustees of Ind. Univ. v. Town of Rhine, 170 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5479 - 2005-03-31
facts is a question of law which we review de novo. Trustees of Ind. Univ. v. Town of Rhine, 170 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5479 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
. The interpretation of a written contract is a question of law for our de novo review. Tang v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33745 - 2008-08-13
. The interpretation of a written contract is a question of law for our de novo review. Tang v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33745 - 2008-08-13
State v. Bernard A. James
. Whether a fact or set of facts constitutes a new factor is a question of law, decided by this court de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4022 - 2005-03-31
. Whether a fact or set of facts constitutes a new factor is a question of law, decided by this court de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4022 - 2005-03-31
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
Heath Buchholz v. Farmers Inc. of Allenton
presents an issue of law, which this court reviews de novo. Morgan, 87 Wis. 2d at 737. ¶9
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21639 - 2006-03-07
presents an issue of law, which this court reviews de novo. Morgan, 87 Wis. 2d at 737. ¶9
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21639 - 2006-03-07
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
is a question of law, which we decide de novo. Id. ¶15 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=204073 - 2017-11-30
is a question of law, which we decide de novo. Id. ¶15 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=204073 - 2017-11-30
[PDF]
State v. Jerry L. Parker
to the facts is a question of law that we decide de novo without deference to the trial court’s decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4479 - 2017-09-19
to the facts is a question of law that we decide de novo without deference to the trial court’s decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4479 - 2017-09-19