Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15671 - 15680 of 30070 for de.
Search results 15671 - 15680 of 30070 for de.
[PDF]
State v. Kerry A. Jordan
which this court reviews de novo. See id. at 137-38. We have often recognized, No. 99-2757-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16136 - 2017-09-21
which this court reviews de novo. See id. at 137-38. We have often recognized, No. 99-2757-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16136 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Confucius Gooden
of a plea agreement presents an issue of law which we review de novo. See State v. Poole, 131 Wis.2d 359
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11869 - 2017-09-21
of a plea agreement presents an issue of law which we review de novo. See State v. Poole, 131 Wis.2d 359
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11869 - 2017-09-21
Michael S. Zeller v. Dennis D. Stockel
the applicable legal standards, however, is a question of law for de novo review. See id. ¶9
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18186 - 2005-05-17
the applicable legal standards, however, is a question of law for de novo review. See id. ¶9
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18186 - 2005-05-17
Justin Pichler v. United States Fire Insurance Company
of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is de novo. See Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis.2d 304
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14002 - 2005-03-31
of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is de novo. See Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis.2d 304
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14002 - 2005-03-31
Russell A. Jorgensen v. Dean G. Katz
judgment; we independently apply the methodology set forth in § 802.08(2), Stats., to the record de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8826 - 2005-03-31
judgment; we independently apply the methodology set forth in § 802.08(2), Stats., to the record de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8826 - 2005-03-31
State v. T.J. International, Inc.
deferring to the department’s determination. We also review the circuit court’s statutory interpretation de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16147 - 2005-03-31
deferring to the department’s determination. We also review the circuit court’s statutory interpretation de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16147 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
is a “prevailing” party is a question of law that we review de novo. See Shadley v. Lloyds of London, 2009 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=69856 - 2014-09-15
is a “prevailing” party is a question of law that we review de novo. See Shadley v. Lloyds of London, 2009 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=69856 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
in a divorce judgment de novo, as we do any written instrument. See Waters v. Waters, 2007 WI App 40, ¶6, 300
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=110388 - 2014-04-16
in a divorce judgment de novo, as we do any written instrument. See Waters v. Waters, 2007 WI App 40, ¶6, 300
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=110388 - 2014-04-16
COURT OF APPEALS
the defendant to relief. This is a question of law that we review de novo. If the motion raises such facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29244 - 2007-05-30
the defendant to relief. This is a question of law that we review de novo. If the motion raises such facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29244 - 2007-05-30
2009 WI APP 17
to the constitutionality of an ordinance presents a question of law that we review de novo. See Wilke v. City of Appleton
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34744 - 2009-01-27
to the constitutionality of an ordinance presents a question of law that we review de novo. See Wilke v. City of Appleton
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34744 - 2009-01-27