Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15271 - 15280 of 30070 for de.

COURT OF APPEALS
duties is a question of law that we review de novo. See Brown, 293 Wis. 2d 594, ¶21. ¶10 The only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29782 - 2007-07-23

[PDF] Dodge County v. Ryan E. M.
in the context of WIS. STAT. § 51.20(7)(a). This is a question of law that we review de novo. Hinrichs v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3914 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
erroneous. See id. “We review de novo the legal questions of whether deficient performance has been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=233552 - 2019-01-29

[PDF] State v. Kirk W. Holstein
, is a question of law this court reviews de novo. Id. DISCUSSION ¶9 On appeal, Holstein posits
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4957 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] State v. Jose G. Corpus
and that the information was prejudicial. Id., ¶22. A constitutional issue is presented which we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19314 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS
clearly erroneous, but whether those facts “pass constitutional muster” is a question of law reviewed de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=147971 - 2015-09-02

Susan A. Riemer v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company
judgment is also de novo, and we apply the same standards and methods as the trial court. Green Spring
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4886 - 2005-03-31

State v. Brian K. John
was impermissibly suggestive. This is a constitutional question we decide de novo. See State v. Woods, 117 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15151 - 2005-03-31

Village of Oregon v. Mark A. Feiler
review de novo. State v. Krier, 165 Wis.2d 673, 676, 478 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Ct. App. 1991). "The question
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10746 - 2005-03-31

Village of Trempealeau v. Mike R. Mikrut
lost competency to proceed presents a question of law that we review de novo without deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6200 - 2005-03-31