Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15431 - 15440 of 30066 for de.
Search results 15431 - 15440 of 30066 for de.
COURT OF APPEALS
,’ and the application of these historical facts to constitutional principles, which we review de novo.” Id. (citation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41625 - 2009-09-28
,’ and the application of these historical facts to constitutional principles, which we review de novo.” Id. (citation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41625 - 2009-09-28
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
a judgment or order is void for lack of jurisdiction is a matter of law that we review de novo. See State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=382494 - 2021-06-29
a judgment or order is void for lack of jurisdiction is a matter of law that we review de novo. See State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=382494 - 2021-06-29
[PDF]
State v. Justin Kolp
reviews de novo. See State v. Young, 212 Wis. 2d 417, 424, 569 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1997). Whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3661 - 2017-09-19
reviews de novo. See State v. Young, 212 Wis. 2d 417, 424, 569 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1997). Whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3661 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
NOTICE
is to “review the determination of reasonable suspicion de novo.” Id. ¶12 If the only erratic driving Bautz
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36470 - 2014-09-15
is to “review the determination of reasonable suspicion de novo.” Id. ¶12 If the only erratic driving Bautz
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36470 - 2014-09-15
State v. Roland A. Smart
in smaller counties were allowed to seek de novo review. Id. at ¶6. The supreme court determined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4996 - 2005-03-31
in smaller counties were allowed to seek de novo review. Id. at ¶6. The supreme court determined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4996 - 2005-03-31
CA Blank Order
. Jiles, 2003 WI 66, ¶26, 262 Wis. 2d 457, 663 N.W.2d 798. We review both determinations de novo because
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140210 - 2015-04-16
. Jiles, 2003 WI 66, ¶26, 262 Wis. 2d 457, 663 N.W.2d 798. We review both determinations de novo because
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140210 - 2015-04-16
WI App 7 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2013AP2615 Complete Title of ...
or fundamental is a question of law we review de novo. Id., ¶6. The burden of establishing that a defect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=130563 - 2015-03-11
or fundamental is a question of law we review de novo. Id., ¶6. The burden of establishing that a defect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=130563 - 2015-03-11
COURT OF APPEALS
that we review de novo. See Marotz v. Hallman, 2007 WI 89, ¶15, 302 Wis. 2d 428, 734 N.W.2d 411. ¶12
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=49635 - 2010-05-03
that we review de novo. See Marotz v. Hallman, 2007 WI 89, ¶15, 302 Wis. 2d 428, 734 N.W.2d 411. ¶12
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=49635 - 2010-05-03
[PDF]
Timothy J. Lipke v. Tri-County Area School Board
). This is a question that we decide de novo, without deference to the trial court’s determination. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12594 - 2017-09-21
). This is a question that we decide de novo, without deference to the trial court’s determination. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12594 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Affirmed. Before
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=54735 - 2014-09-15
a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Affirmed. Before
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=54735 - 2014-09-15