Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 16581 - 16590 of 29796 for des.
Search results 16581 - 16590 of 29796 for des.
[PDF]
William J. Vonderhaar v. Soo Line Railroad Company
a prima facie case for summary judgment. ¶4 We review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2221 - 2017-09-19
a prima facie case for summary judgment. ¶4 We review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2221 - 2017-09-19
Shannon S. v. Jackson C.
presents a question of statutory construction, an issue of law, which we review de novo. Smith v. Williams
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7035 - 2005-03-31
presents a question of statutory construction, an issue of law, which we review de novo. Smith v. Williams
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7035 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that arise during our review of an exercise of discretion are decided de novo. See King v. King, 224 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197683 - 2017-10-11
that arise during our review of an exercise of discretion are decided de novo. See King v. King, 224 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197683 - 2017-10-11
[PDF]
1522 on the Lake v. Nella Groysman
found in favor of the Association.3 Groysman sought de novo review by the circuit court. ¶4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26130 - 2017-09-21
found in favor of the Association.3 Groysman sought de novo review by the circuit court. ¶4
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26130 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Walter A. Kirch III
interpretation. Because statutory interpretation is a question of law, we apply a de novo standard of review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13683 - 2017-09-21
interpretation. Because statutory interpretation is a question of law, we apply a de novo standard of review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13683 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
Summary Judgment Standard ¶8 We review summary judgments de novo, using the same methodology
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26614 - 2006-10-02
Summary Judgment Standard ¶8 We review summary judgments de novo, using the same methodology
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26614 - 2006-10-02
Amber L. English v. Virgil Woodworth
the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. See Universal Dye & Stampings, 174 Wis. 2d at 560
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15422 - 2005-03-31
the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. See Universal Dye & Stampings, 174 Wis. 2d at 560
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15422 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Susan K. Frenz v. State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development
to “due weight” or “great bearing.” The lowest level of review, the de novo standard, is applied where
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12574 - 2017-09-21
to “due weight” or “great bearing.” The lowest level of review, the de novo standard, is applied where
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12574 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. David J. Baertschi
the deficient performance prejudiced Baertschi’s defense, are questions of law that we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15607 - 2017-09-21
the deficient performance prejudiced Baertschi’s defense, are questions of law that we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15607 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
are not in dispute, and our review is de novo. See id., 2005 WI 126, ¶16, 285 Wis. 2d at 154, 699 N.W.2d at 587
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32212 - 2008-03-24
are not in dispute, and our review is de novo. See id., 2005 WI 126, ¶16, 285 Wis. 2d at 154, 699 N.W.2d at 587
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32212 - 2008-03-24