Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15811 - 15820 of 30177 for de.
Search results 15811 - 15820 of 30177 for de.
COURT OF APPEALS
is a legal question that we review de novo. Harvot v. Solo Cup Co., 2009 WI 85, ¶¶31-32, 320 Wis.2d 1, 768
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82292 - 2012-05-09
is a legal question that we review de novo. Harvot v. Solo Cup Co., 2009 WI 85, ¶¶31-32, 320 Wis.2d 1, 768
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82292 - 2012-05-09
COURT OF APPEALS
damages, that issue presents a legal question, which is reviewed de novo. J.K., 337 Wis. 2d 504, ¶32. ¶9
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=111941 - 2014-05-08
damages, that issue presents a legal question, which is reviewed de novo. J.K., 337 Wis. 2d 504, ¶32. ¶9
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=111941 - 2014-05-08
COURT OF APPEALS
(Ct. App. 1998). Whether a written instrument is ambiguous is a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31262 - 2007-12-19
(Ct. App. 1998). Whether a written instrument is ambiguous is a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31262 - 2007-12-19
Village of Trempealeau v. Mike R. Mikrut
lost competency to proceed presents a question of law that we review de novo without deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6200 - 2005-03-31
lost competency to proceed presents a question of law that we review de novo without deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6200 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
performance prejudiced the defendant are questions of law, which we review de novo. The defendant has
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31063 - 2007-12-04
performance prejudiced the defendant are questions of law, which we review de novo. The defendant has
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31063 - 2007-12-04
[PDF]
State v. Roger Sundquist
, is a question of law that we decide de novo without deference to the circuit court’s decision. Id. ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18199 - 2017-09-21
, is a question of law that we decide de novo without deference to the circuit court’s decision. Id. ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18199 - 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
COURT OF APPEALS
of the $2500 necessary to convict him of a Class C felony. We review de novo whether a court had subject
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36249 - 2009-04-28
of the $2500 necessary to convict him of a Class C felony. We review de novo whether a court had subject
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36249 - 2009-04-28
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. Sufficiency of the motion is a question of law we review de novo. See id. Counsel will be deemed
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=144245 - 2017-09-21
. Sufficiency of the motion is a question of law we review de novo. See id. Counsel will be deemed
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=144245 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
omitted). Statutory interpretation is an issue of law subject to de novo review. See State v. Ozuna
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=644620 - 2023-04-13
omitted). Statutory interpretation is an issue of law subject to de novo review. See State v. Ozuna
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=644620 - 2023-04-13