Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 16471 - 16480 of 29735 for des.

[PDF] State v. James W. Rice, Jr.
of law subject to de novo review.” State v. Garcia, 195 Wis. 2d 68, 73, 535 N.W.2d 124 (Ct. App. 1995
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2555 - 2017-09-19

State v. Annette S.
of parental rights is a legal issue subject to de novo review. See State v. Patricia A.P., 195 Wis. 2d 855
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6495 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
, on the other hand, is a question of law, which we review de novo. Harnischfeger Corp. v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 650
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=135731 - 2015-02-25

[PDF] NOTICE
. This is a question of law that we review de novo. [State v.] Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d [303,] 309-10[, 548 N.W.2d 50
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52530 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] T & T Masonry, Inc. v. Roxton Associates
, 195 Wis.2d at 496-97, 536 N.W.2d at 182. Although we review summary judgment de novo, id. at 496
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9839 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] State v. Michael J. Corey
stopped. See id. The legality of the initial stop is a question of law which we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14717 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS
. See Mucek, 252 Wis. 2d 426, ¶28. ¶17 We turn to the grant of summary judgment. We review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=56518 - 2010-11-09

State v. Rudolph L. Jackson
conduct violated the terms of the plea agreement is a question of law that we review de novo. Williams
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6652 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] CA Blank Order
that this court considers de novo. Id., ¶33. We conclude that LeFlore has not established that his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=823702 - 2024-07-09

Cochran v. Public Service Commission
and jurisdiction to decide an issue, a question of law is ultimately presented which we review de novo. See Jocz v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14177 - 2005-03-31