Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14611 - 14620 of 30177 for de.
Search results 14611 - 14620 of 30177 for de.
COURT OF APPEALS
, 264 Wis. 2d 571, ¶21. This court reviews de novo the legal questions of whether deficient performance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=39904 - 2009-08-25
, 264 Wis. 2d 571, ¶21. This court reviews de novo the legal questions of whether deficient performance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=39904 - 2009-08-25
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. Kristiansen appeals. Discussion ¶7 Our review of a circuit court’s decision on summary judgment is de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=576895 - 2022-10-12
. Kristiansen appeals. Discussion ¶7 Our review of a circuit court’s decision on summary judgment is de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=576895 - 2022-10-12
[PDF]
WI App 130
of his ten-month battery sentence. This is a statutory construction question that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70096 - 2014-09-15
of his ten-month battery sentence. This is a statutory construction question that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70096 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of law subject to de novo review.” State v. Romero-Georgana, 2014 WI 83, ¶30, 360 Wis. 2d 522, 849 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=913342 - 2025-02-11
of law subject to de novo review.” State v. Romero-Georgana, 2014 WI 83, ¶30, 360 Wis. 2d 522, 849 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=913342 - 2025-02-11
[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]
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=15520 - 2017-09-21
“[t]he ultimate determination of whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial” de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15520 - 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=15524 - 2017-09-21
“[t]he ultimate determination of whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial” de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15524 - 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=15521 - 2017-09-21
“[t]he ultimate determination of whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial” de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15521 - 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=15525 - 2017-09-21
“[t]he ultimate determination of whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial” de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15525 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
de novo. Id. ¶5 We conclude that Copeland is not entitled to suppression of the evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98391 - 2014-09-15
de novo. Id. ¶5 We conclude that Copeland is not entitled to suppression of the evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=98391 - 2014-09-15