Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 16131 - 16140 of 29740 for des.
Search results 16131 - 16140 of 29740 for des.
Mary Aiello v. Village of Pleasant Prairie
of law which we review de novo. First Nat'l Leasing Corp. v. City of Madison, 81 Wis.2d 205, 208, 260
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9061 - 2005-03-31
of law which we review de novo. First Nat'l Leasing Corp. v. City of Madison, 81 Wis.2d 205, 208, 260
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9061 - 2005-03-31
State v. Terry V. Anderson
partnership agreement and not an investment contract. This issue presents a question of law that we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9533 - 2005-03-31
partnership agreement and not an investment contract. This issue presents a question of law that we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9533 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
). Whether an officer has probable cause to administer a PBT “is a legal issue that we decide de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=135400 - 2015-02-18
). Whether an officer has probable cause to administer a PBT “is a legal issue that we decide de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=135400 - 2015-02-18
James R. Grassman v. Deanna L. Grassman
. However, whether the change is substantial is a legal issue which we review de novo. See id. at 574
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16143 - 2005-03-31
. However, whether the change is substantial is a legal issue which we review de novo. See id. at 574
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16143 - 2005-03-31
State v. Willie J. Hickles
that we review de novo.” Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 310. Once we independently confirm the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26217 - 2011-06-13
that we review de novo.” Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 310. Once we independently confirm the trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26217 - 2011-06-13
COURT OF APPEALS
a question of law, which we review de novo. Id. ¶9 The requirement to disclose under Wis. Stat
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36117 - 2006-10-17
a question of law, which we review de novo. Id. ¶9 The requirement to disclose under Wis. Stat
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36117 - 2006-10-17
Penny M. Z. v. John D. R.
was harmless error. Error that is de minimis does not constitute grounds for reversal. Laribee v. Laribee
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12169 - 2005-03-31
was harmless error. Error that is de minimis does not constitute grounds for reversal. Laribee v. Laribee
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12169 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
is ultimately a legal determination that this court decides de novo. Id. No. 2013AP891-CR 4 ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=103683 - 2017-09-21
is ultimately a legal determination that this court decides de novo. Id. No. 2013AP891-CR 4 ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=103683 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Daniel R. Taylor v. Susan M. Taylor
is “in the nature of a contract,” the construction of which is a question of law we decide de novo. Rosplock v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4827 - 2017-09-19
is “in the nature of a contract,” the construction of which is a question of law we decide de novo. Rosplock v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4827 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the [circuit] court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but review de novo whether those
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=208808 - 2018-02-21
the [circuit] court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but review de novo whether those
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=208808 - 2018-02-21