Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 16091 - 16100 of 30077 for de.
Search results 16091 - 16100 of 30077 for de.
COURT OF APPEALS
the defendant to relief. This is a question of law that we review de novo. If the motion raises such facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29244 - 2007-05-30
the defendant to relief. This is a question of law that we review de novo. If the motion raises such facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29244 - 2007-05-30
[PDF]
NOTICE
the sufficiency of a postconviction motion de novo, based on the four corners of the motion. Id., ¶¶9, 27
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=48600 - 2014-09-15
the sufficiency of a postconviction motion de novo, based on the four corners of the motion. Id., ¶¶9, 27
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=48600 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Ventae Parrow
entitle the defendant to relief, is a question of law to be reviewed de novo by this court. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14988 - 2017-09-21
entitle the defendant to relief, is a question of law to be reviewed de novo by this court. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14988 - 2017-09-21
[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
[PDF]
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.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=82292 - 2014-09-15
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.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=82292 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Trevor A. McKee
were defective is a matter of law which we review de novo, owing no deference to the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11975 - 2017-09-21
were defective is a matter of law which we review de novo, owing no deference to the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11975 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
review de novo. McNeil v. Hansen, 2007 WI 56, No. 2016AP515-FT 4 ¶7, 300 Wis. 2d 358, 731
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=175684 - 2017-09-21
review de novo. McNeil v. Hansen, 2007 WI 56, No. 2016AP515-FT 4 ¶7, 300 Wis. 2d 358, 731
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=175684 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
is a question of law that we review de novo. See Oneida Cty. DSS v. Therese S., 2008 WI App 159, ¶7, 314 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=246011 - 2019-09-04
is a question of law that we review de novo. See Oneida Cty. DSS v. Therese S., 2008 WI App 159, ¶7, 314 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=246011 - 2019-09-04
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
in favor of Quorum. Rumpf appeals. We review summary judgments de novo, using the same methodology
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=168836 - 2017-09-21
in favor of Quorum. Rumpf appeals. We review summary judgments de novo, using the same methodology
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=168836 - 2017-09-21
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