Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15311 - 15320 of 30134 for consulta de causas.

State v. Kemmick D. Holmes
reviews de novo. See State v. Anderson, 219 Wis. 2d 739, 746, 580 N.W.2d 329, 332 (1998
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15633 - 2005-03-31

State v. Joseph Keepers
reviews de novo. See id. at 634. ¶10 Keepers argues that his trial counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2284 - 2005-03-31

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

[PDF] County of Dunn v. Joseph W. Uetz
, despite our de novo standard of review, we value the circuit court's opinion. See Scheunemann v. West
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5130 - 2017-09-19

State Bank of Cross Plains v. Douglas J. Garavalia
a question of law, which we review de novo. Garcia v. Mazda Motors of Am. Inc., 2004 WI 93,¶7, 273 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25276 - 2006-05-24

[PDF] State v. Alan Michael Wiedenhoeft
is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Bollig, 222 Wis. 2d 558, 563, 587 N.W.2d 908 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15966 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN
will conduct a de novo review because the issues are issues of law and the facts are undisputed. See Gielow v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50541 - 2010-07-27

COURT OF APPEALS
of reasonable suspicion de novo. See id. ¶10 Here, the circuit court found that Jaeger’s initial stop
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=73001 - 2011-11-01

2009 WI APP 91
of statutory interpretation and the constitutionality of a statute. We review both questions de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36492 - 2009-06-29

COURT OF APPEALS
there was ineffective assistance of counsel is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=100715 - 2013-08-12