Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15411 - 15420 of 30059 for de.
Search results 15411 - 15420 of 30059 for de.
State v. Dennis G. Valstad
probable cause under a de novo standard of review. County of Jefferson v. Renz, 231 Wis. 2d 293, 316, 603
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6260 - 2005-03-31
probable cause under a de novo standard of review. County of Jefferson v. Renz, 231 Wis. 2d 293, 316, 603
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6260 - 2005-03-31
Jessica Smith v. Nikolas H. Markos
de novo. See Millen v. Thomas, 201 Wis.2d 675, 682, 550 N.W.2d 134, 137 (Ct. App. 1996). Summary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13489 - 2005-03-31
de novo. See Millen v. Thomas, 201 Wis.2d 675, 682, 550 N.W.2d 134, 137 (Ct. App. 1996). Summary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13489 - 2005-03-31
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
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
COURT OF APPEALS
de novo. See Northbrook Wis., LLC v. City of Niagara, 2014 WI App 22, ¶28, 352 Wis. 2d 657, 843 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121637 - 2014-09-16
de novo. See Northbrook Wis., LLC v. City of Niagara, 2014 WI App 22, ¶28, 352 Wis. 2d 657, 843 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121637 - 2014-09-16
[PDF]
Lorraine K. Kerbell (now Ruth) v. Robert A. Kerbell
.2d 733, 737 (1968). We review questions of law de novo. Ball v. District No. 4 Area Bd., 117
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11453 - 2017-09-19
.2d 733, 737 (1968). We review questions of law de novo. Ball v. District No. 4 Area Bd., 117
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11453 - 2017-09-19
[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
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
State v. James J. Mischler
. The application of a statute to undisputed facts is a question of law which we review de novo. See Gonzalez v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12701 - 2005-03-31
. The application of a statute to undisputed facts is a question of law which we review de novo. See Gonzalez v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12701 - 2005-03-31
[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
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
, 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]
CA Blank Order
was deficient or prejudicial is a question of law we review de novo.” Id. (citation omitted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=797950 - 2024-05-08
was deficient or prejudicial is a question of law we review de novo.” Id. (citation omitted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=797950 - 2024-05-08