Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15721 - 15730 of 29740 for des.
Search results 15721 - 15730 of 29740 for des.
2008 WI APP 103
deference, due-weight and de novo review, or no deference. Telemark Dev., Inc. v. DOR, 218 Wis. 2d 809, 817
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33015 - 2008-07-29
deference, due-weight and de novo review, or no deference. Telemark Dev., Inc. v. DOR, 218 Wis. 2d 809, 817
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33015 - 2008-07-29
COURT OF APPEALS
was deficient and whether the deficiency prejudiced the defense are questions of law that we review de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33046 - 2008-06-16
was deficient and whether the deficiency prejudiced the defense are questions of law that we review de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33046 - 2008-06-16
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
is a question of law we review de novo. See Washburn Cnty. v. Smith, 2008 WI 23, ¶16, 308 Wis. 2d 65, 746 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118797 - 2014-09-15
is a question of law we review de novo. See Washburn Cnty. v. Smith, 2008 WI 23, ¶16, 308 Wis. 2d 65, 746 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118797 - 2014-09-15
State v. Ricardo Martinez
right to a fair trial and raises a question of law that we review de novo. Id. ¶7 The threshold
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7401 - 2005-03-31
right to a fair trial and raises a question of law that we review de novo. Id. ¶7 The threshold
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7401 - 2005-03-31
Kevin J. Kollock v. City of Cumberland Zoning Board of Appeals
, it is ambiguous. Id. Whether an ordinance is ambiguous is a question of law we review de novo. See Boltz v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7446 - 2005-03-31
, it is ambiguous. Id. Whether an ordinance is ambiguous is a question of law we review de novo. See Boltz v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7446 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
judgment decisions de novo, applying the same legal standard and methodology employed by the circuit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=999800 - 2025-08-26
judgment decisions de novo, applying the same legal standard and methodology employed by the circuit
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=999800 - 2025-08-26
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, 278 N.W.2d 857 (1979). We review grants of summary judgment de novo. Donaldson v. Urban Land
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107933 - 2017-09-21
, 278 N.W.2d 857 (1979). We review grants of summary judgment de novo. Donaldson v. Urban Land
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107933 - 2017-09-21
Micah Oriedo v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission
of a statute may be accorded great weight deference, due weight deference or de novo review, depending
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4059 - 2005-03-31
of a statute may be accorded great weight deference, due weight deference or de novo review, depending
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4059 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
)(a). ¶8 At the County’s request, on December 4, 2009, the circuit court held a de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=54754 - 2010-09-22
)(a). ¶8 At the County’s request, on December 4, 2009, the circuit court held a de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=54754 - 2010-09-22
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of evidentiary or historical fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Id., ¶18. We review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=255163 - 2020-02-27
of evidentiary or historical fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Id., ¶18. We review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=255163 - 2020-02-27