Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 15961 - 15970 of 29740 for des.
Search results 15961 - 15970 of 29740 for des.
[PDF]
State v. Jason M. Mulroy
. APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Outagamie County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6757 - 2017-09-20
. APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Outagamie County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6757 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
State v. Timothy J. Meddaugh
to undisputed facts is a question of law which we decide de novo. State v. Foust, 214 Wis. 2d 568, 571-72
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3714 - 2017-09-19
to undisputed facts is a question of law which we decide de novo. State v. Foust, 214 Wis. 2d 568, 571-72
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3714 - 2017-09-19
Frontsheet
de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55827 - 2010-10-20
de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55827 - 2010-10-20
State v. William E. Conley
or the prejudice prong is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. See id. at 634, 369 N.W.2d at 715
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12922 - 2005-03-31
or the prejudice prong is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. See id. at 634, 369 N.W.2d at 715
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12922 - 2005-03-31
State v. Aurelio Magdariaga
-of-counsel claims is a question of law, which we review de novo. See State v. Bentley, 201 Wis.2d 303, 308
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10991 - 2005-03-31
-of-counsel claims is a question of law, which we review de novo. See State v. Bentley, 201 Wis.2d 303, 308
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10991 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. STAT. § 973.046(1r)(b) violates his due process rights. We review de novo the question
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=180829 - 2017-09-21
. STAT. § 973.046(1r)(b) violates his due process rights. We review de novo the question
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=180829 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
findings unless clearly erroneous but reviewing de novo whether those facts warrant suppression. See State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=80630 - 2012-04-09
findings unless clearly erroneous but reviewing de novo whether those facts warrant suppression. See State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=80630 - 2012-04-09
COURT OF APPEALS
,” as required by Wis. Stat. § 973.20(4m), is a question of statutory construction that we review de novo. State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55511 - 2010-10-13
,” as required by Wis. Stat. § 973.20(4m), is a question of statutory construction that we review de novo. State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55511 - 2010-10-13
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
, 605 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1999). This presents a question of law that we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=272887 - 2020-08-05
, 605 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1999). This presents a question of law that we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=272887 - 2020-08-05