Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15821 - 15830 of 29848 for des.
Search results 15821 - 15830 of 29848 for des.
Sanfelippo Environmental Construction, LLC v. Mews Companies, Inc.
explained: The interpretation of a contract is a question of law which we review de novo. Where the terms
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14586 - 2005-03-31
explained: The interpretation of a contract is a question of law which we review de novo. Where the terms
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14586 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the statute applied to Brittany’s claim. ¶6 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, using
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1027257 - 2025-10-22
the statute applied to Brittany’s claim. ¶6 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, using
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1027257 - 2025-10-22
State v. John Tereschko
is therefore de novo. In re D.S.P., 166 Wis. 2d 464, 471, 480 N.W.2d 234 (1992). On review of summary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3351 - 2005-03-31
is therefore de novo. In re D.S.P., 166 Wis. 2d 464, 471, 480 N.W.2d 234 (1992). On review of summary
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3351 - 2005-03-31
Jennifer L. Lyon v. Michael R. Max
review de novo. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Spencer's Kenosha Bowl, 137 Wis.2d 313, 317, 404 N.W.2d 109, 111
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9939 - 2005-03-31
review de novo. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Spencer's Kenosha Bowl, 137 Wis.2d 313, 317, 404 N.W.2d 109, 111
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9939 - 2005-03-31
State v. Roger Sundquist
of constitutional principles to the facts, however, is a question of law that we decide de novo without deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18199 - 2005-05-17
of constitutional principles to the facts, however, is a question of law that we decide de novo without deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18199 - 2005-05-17
[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
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, which this court decides de novo. Id. We need not address both prongs of the test if the defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=189890 - 2017-09-21
, which this court decides de novo. Id. We need not address both prongs of the test if the defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=189890 - 2017-09-21
[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=12318 - 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=12318 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
David J. Gehl v. Peter Conrad
of that discretion involves a question of law, we review the question de novo, benefiting from the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26120 - 2017-09-21
of that discretion involves a question of law, we review the question de novo, benefiting from the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26120 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Jeffrey L. Leggions
to the facts is a question of law that we decide de novo without deference to the trial court’s decision. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5493 - 2017-09-19
to the facts is a question of law that we decide de novo without deference to the trial court’s decision. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5493 - 2017-09-19