Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15621 - 15630 of 30154 for consulta de causas.
Search results 15621 - 15630 of 30154 for consulta de causas.
State v. Joe J. Davis
is a question of law that we review de novo.” Id. at 310 (citations omitted). A circuit court may refuse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2256 - 2005-03-31
is a question of law that we review de novo.” Id. at 310 (citations omitted). A circuit court may refuse
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2256 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. David W. Janke
are satisfied are questions of law that this court reviews de novo. See State v. Krier, 165 Wis.2d 673, 676
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8748 - 2017-09-19
are satisfied are questions of law that this court reviews de novo. See State v. Krier, 165 Wis.2d 673, 676
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8748 - 2017-09-19
State v. Willie J. Hickles
that we review de novo.” Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 310. Once we independently confirm the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26217 - 2006-08-14
that we review de novo.” Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 310. Once we independently confirm the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26217 - 2006-08-14
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
COURT OF APPEALS
a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Fortier, 2006 WI App 11, ¶18, 289 Wis. 2d 179, 709 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143085 - 2015-06-16
a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Fortier, 2006 WI App 11, ¶18, 289 Wis. 2d 179, 709 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143085 - 2015-06-16
John McClellan v. Mary L. Santich
by Santich in briefing this aspect of the appeal was de minimis; 2) More importantly, Santich's brief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11669 - 2005-03-31
by Santich in briefing this aspect of the appeal was de minimis; 2) More importantly, Santich's brief
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11669 - 2005-03-31
State v. Chris C. Lichtenberg
to a speedy trial has been violated is a constitutional question we review de novo, although we will uphold
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5602 - 2005-03-31
to a speedy trial has been violated is a constitutional question we review de novo, although we will uphold
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5602 - 2005-03-31
State v. John C. Clincy
and seizure satisfies constitutional demands is a question of law subject to de novo review. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12379 - 2005-03-31
and seizure satisfies constitutional demands is a question of law subject to de novo review. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12379 - 2005-03-31
State v. Ricardo Miramontes-Santos
facts, are sufficient to fulfill the constitutional standard is a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5108 - 2005-03-31
facts, are sufficient to fulfill the constitutional standard is a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5108 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
, has acknowledged arguments for both the discretionary standard as well as de novo review, and it has
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=980324 - 2025-07-08
, has acknowledged arguments for both the discretionary standard as well as de novo review, and it has
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=980324 - 2025-07-08