Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15881 - 15890 of 30072 for de.
Search results 15881 - 15890 of 30072 for de.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
to the findings of fact de novo.” State v. Smiter, 2011 WI App 15, ¶9, 331 Wis. 2d 431, 793 N.W.2d 920 (2010
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=997177 - 2025-08-20
to the findings of fact de novo.” State v. Smiter, 2011 WI App 15, ¶9, 331 Wis. 2d 431, 793 N.W.2d 920 (2010
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=997177 - 2025-08-20
Mid-State Contracting, Inc. v. Superior Floor Company, Inc.
Whether to allow interest on a verdict is a question of law that we review de novo. See Weber v. CNW
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5060 - 2005-03-31
Whether to allow interest on a verdict is a question of law that we review de novo. See Weber v. CNW
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5060 - 2005-03-31
State v. Michael Bartz
N.W.2d 827, 833 (1973). We conduct our review de novo because the question of whether a lesser
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9572 - 2005-03-31
N.W.2d 827, 833 (1973). We conduct our review de novo because the question of whether a lesser
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9572 - 2005-03-31
Cassondra Pearson v. Joshua M. Prissel
. The court granted the motion. Prissel appeals. Discussion ¶8 We review summary judgments de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21375 - 2006-02-13
. The court granted the motion. Prissel appeals. Discussion ¶8 We review summary judgments de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21375 - 2006-02-13
M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Richard W. Schlueter
grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, owing no deference to the trial court’s decision. Waters v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5104 - 2005-03-31
grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, owing no deference to the trial court’s decision. Waters v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5104 - 2005-03-31
Ernie Garibay v. Circuit Court for Kenosha County
. § 971.20(6). An issue of statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5135 - 2005-03-31
. § 971.20(6). An issue of statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5135 - 2005-03-31
State v. DeVon'tre L. Cottingham
question which we review de novo. ¶7 Cottingham first argues that trial counsel failed to argue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5189 - 2005-03-31
question which we review de novo. ¶7 Cottingham first argues that trial counsel failed to argue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5189 - 2005-03-31
Michael Hook v. William A. Bonner and Judith L. Bonner
is a question of law we review de novo.”[2] Soc’y Ins. v. Town of Franklin, 2000 WI App 35, ¶5, 233 Wis. 2d 207
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5538 - 2005-03-31
is a question of law we review de novo.”[2] Soc’y Ins. v. Town of Franklin, 2000 WI App 35, ¶5, 233 Wis. 2d 207
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5538 - 2005-03-31
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.html?content=html&seqNo=12594 - 2005-03-31
). This is a question that we decide de novo, without deference to the trial court’s determination. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12594 - 2005-03-31
Juneau County v. Sauk County
application to undisputed facts, is a question of law which we decide de novo, without deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12469 - 2005-03-31
application to undisputed facts, is a question of law which we decide de novo, without deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12469 - 2005-03-31