Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15231 - 15240 of 30165 for de.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
of law for our de novo review. PRN Assocs. LLC v. DOA, 2009 WI 53, ¶25, 317 Wis. 2d 656, 766 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=212213 - 2018-05-02

[PDF] State v. Tecia D.B.
termination of parental rights is a legal issue subject to de novo review. See State v. Patricia A.P., 195
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6835 - 2017-09-20

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 21, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of ...
. This is a question of law that we review de novo. [State v.] Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d [303,] 309-10[, 548 N.W.2d 50
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27185 - 2006-11-20

Allan Hoffmann v. Wisconsin Electric Power Company
to the jury is a question of law we review de novo. See Walter v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 121 Wis. 2d 221, 231
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3112 - 2005-03-31

State v. Brook Grzelak
. This case requires us to interpret § 976.05(3)(a), Stats., which we do de novo. See Kettner v. Wausau Ins
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12501 - 2005-03-31

State v. Tomas R. Payano-Roman
. At the United States border, citizens have a diminished expectation of privacy. See United States v. Montoya de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18072 - 2005-07-06

[PDF] Production Stamping Corporation v. Maryland Casualty Company
the trial court’s decision de novo. See Grams v. Boss, 97 Wis. 2d 332, 338, 294 N.W.2d 473 (1980
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14453 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Sally Ann Minniecheske
to the trial court for de novo consideration of Minniescheske’s motion. By the Court.—Judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12127 - 2017-09-21

Lorraine K. Kerbell (now Ruth) v. Robert A. Kerbell
questions of law de novo. Ball v. District No. 4 Area Bd., 117 Wis.2d 529, 537, 345 N.W.2d 389, 394 (1984
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11453 - 2005-03-31

Penny M. Z. v. John D. R.
was harmless error. Error that is de minimis does not constitute grounds for reversal. Laribee v. Laribee
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12169 - 2005-03-31