Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 14861 - 14870 of 29821 for des.

[PDF] City of Elkhorn v. The 211 Centralia Street Corporation
judgment determinations de novo, employing the same methodology as the circuit court. Roebke v. Newell
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6736 - 2017-09-20

COURT OF APPEALS
conclusions. ¶8 We review a trial court’s grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Krier v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56782 - 2010-11-16

State v. Ronald Harris
prejudiced the defense, however, are questions of law which we review de novo. Id. ¶15
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2825 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] U.S. Bank National Association v. City of Milwaukee
, as it survives Nankin, but also related statutes. Our review is de novo. See Truttschel v. Martin, 208 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6279 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
of law that we review de novo. First Weber Grp., Inc. v. Synergy Real Est. Grp., LLC, 2015 WI 34, ¶20
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=481717 - 2022-02-10

Lafayette County Human Services v. Gary A.S.
of statutory construction, a question of law, which we review de novo. See State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2340 - 2005-03-31

State v. Rodobaldo C. Pozo
is a question of law we review de novo. Id. Pozo argues that Pappenfuss engaged
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10656 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] WI APP 44
judgment de novo, applying the same methodology as the circuit court. H & R Block E. Enters. v. Swenson
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=78961 - 2014-09-15

COURT OF APPEALS
appeal. Standards of Review ¶18 We review a circuit court’s grant of summary judgment de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30403 - 2007-09-26

[PDF] Gaetano Riccobono v. Seven Star, Inc.
and the existence of coverage under the policy are questions of law which we decide de novo. See Doyle v. Engelke
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14499 - 2017-09-21