Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 16201 - 16210 of 30134 for consulta de causas.
Search results 16201 - 16210 of 30134 for consulta de causas.
COURT OF APPEALS
review de novo. See State v. Harris, 2004 WI 64, ¶11, 272 Wis. 2d 80, 680 N.W.2d 737. We review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55960 - 2010-10-27
review de novo. See State v. Harris, 2004 WI 64, ¶11, 272 Wis. 2d 80, 680 N.W.2d 737. We review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55960 - 2010-10-27
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
Richard F. Salewske v. Leroy W. Depies
a question of law that we review de novo. See Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Dane County, 142 Wis. 2d 315
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16261 - 2005-03-31
a question of law that we review de novo. See Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Dane County, 142 Wis. 2d 315
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16261 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
Droegkamp is a “prevailing” party is a question of law that we review de novo. See Shadley v. Lloyds
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69856 - 2010-12-15
Droegkamp is a “prevailing” party is a question of law that we review de novo. See Shadley v. Lloyds
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69856 - 2010-12-15
COURT OF APPEALS
facts which would entitle the defendant to relief. Id. This is a question of law that we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121168 - 2014-09-08
facts which would entitle the defendant to relief. Id. This is a question of law that we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121168 - 2014-09-08
Welding Shop, Ltd. v. Silent Stalker, Inc.
review summary judgment decisions de novo, using the methodology set out in § 802.08(2), Stats. See M&I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14675 - 2009-07-29
review summary judgment decisions de novo, using the methodology set out in § 802.08(2), Stats. See M&I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14675 - 2009-07-29
COURT OF APPEALS
condemnation statutes to undisputed or found facts, thus presenting questions of law for our de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50755 - 2010-06-08
condemnation statutes to undisputed or found facts, thus presenting questions of law for our de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=50755 - 2010-06-08
COURT OF APPEALS
: de novo. See State v. Howell, 2007 WI 75, ¶¶30, 78, 301 Wis. 2d 350, 369, 388, 734 N.W.2d 48, 57, 67
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74805 - 2011-12-21
: de novo. See State v. Howell, 2007 WI 75, ¶¶30, 78, 301 Wis. 2d 350, 369, 388, 734 N.W.2d 48, 57, 67
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74805 - 2011-12-21
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 - 2005-04-23
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 - 2005-04-23
WI App 127 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2010AP1366-CR Complete Titl...
erroneous. Id., ¶12. Then, we review de novo whether those facts constitute a Fourth Amendment violation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69202 - 2011-09-27
erroneous. Id., ¶12. Then, we review de novo whether those facts constitute a Fourth Amendment violation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69202 - 2011-09-27