Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14471 - 14480 of 29995 for consulta de causas.
Search results 14471 - 14480 of 29995 for consulta de causas.
[PDF]
NOTICE
a hearsay exception, however, is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Stevens, 171 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=56785 - 2014-09-15
a hearsay exception, however, is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Stevens, 171 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=56785 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
a new factor exists is a question of law that we review de novo. Id., ¶36. No. 2014AP165-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=134599 - 2017-09-21
a new factor exists is a question of law that we review de novo. Id., ¶36. No. 2014AP165-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=134599 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, though we review de novo the ultimate conclusion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=130180 - 2014-11-24
court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, though we review de novo the ultimate conclusion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=130180 - 2014-11-24
COURT OF APPEALS
decides de novo. Id. The test for ineffective assistance of counsel has two prongs: (1) a demonstration
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30890 - 2007-11-14
decides de novo. Id. The test for ineffective assistance of counsel has two prongs: (1) a demonstration
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30890 - 2007-11-14
State v. Daryl O. Norris
de novo. See State v. Ziegenhagen, 73 Wis. 2d 656, 664, 245 N.W.2d 656 (1976). This court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5675 - 2005-03-31
de novo. See State v. Ziegenhagen, 73 Wis. 2d 656, 664, 245 N.W.2d 656 (1976). This court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5675 - 2005-03-31
State v. Lee D. Worby
which we review de novo and without deference to the trial court. There is a presumption that a judge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2917 - 2005-03-31
which we review de novo and without deference to the trial court. There is a presumption that a judge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2917 - 2005-03-31
State v. Shermell G. Tabor
is disputed. Accordingly, our review is de novo. State v. Swiams, 2004 WI App 217, ¶5, 277 Wis. 2d 400, 404
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17874 - 2005-06-12
is disputed. Accordingly, our review is de novo. State v. Swiams, 2004 WI App 217, ¶5, 277 Wis. 2d 400, 404
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17874 - 2005-06-12
Sandra L. Wojtasiak v. Podiatry Associates
be given is a question of law we review de novo. Id. at 602. However, appellate courts ordinarily defer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4301 - 2005-03-31
be given is a question of law we review de novo. Id. at 602. However, appellate courts ordinarily defer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4301 - 2005-03-31
Jerry Saenz v. Gary McCaughtry
was harmless. We will review de novo the adjustment committee’s decision to determine whether substantial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13416 - 2005-03-31
was harmless. We will review de novo the adjustment committee’s decision to determine whether substantial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13416 - 2005-03-31
State v. Douglas Lois
de novo. Id. Section 343.305(3)(a), Stats., provides in relevant part
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8778 - 2005-03-31
de novo. Id. Section 343.305(3)(a), Stats., provides in relevant part
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8778 - 2005-03-31