Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 16931 - 16940 of 29828 for des.
Search results 16931 - 16940 of 29828 for des.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
determination, which this court decides de novo. Id. We need not address both prongs of the test
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=135949 - 2017-09-21
determination, which this court decides de novo. Id. We need not address both prongs of the test
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=135949 - 2017-09-21
State v. Christopher L. Ambort
was violated. Both are questions of law that we decide de novo. See State v. Rydeski, 214 Wis. 2d 101, 106
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26093 - 2006-08-02
was violated. Both are questions of law that we decide de novo. See State v. Rydeski, 214 Wis. 2d 101, 106
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26093 - 2006-08-02
[PDF]
State v. Kenneth E. Hopkins
, whether it was prejudicial, are legal issues we review de novo, id. at 236-37. A. Hearsay Statements
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4786 - 2017-09-19
, whether it was prejudicial, are legal issues we review de novo, id. at 236-37. A. Hearsay Statements
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4786 - 2017-09-19
Norman L. Zimdars v. Margaret A. VanCleave
is a question of law subject to de novo review. Id. at ¶26. ¶6 In Washington, the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5948 - 2005-03-31
is a question of law subject to de novo review. Id. at ¶26. ¶6 In Washington, the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5948 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
). The proper interpretation and application of Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4) is a question of law that we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33447 - 2008-07-22
). The proper interpretation and application of Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4) is a question of law that we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33447 - 2008-07-22
State v. Abby J. Olson
. ¶7 The issue is one of statutory interpretation—a question of law which we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16173 - 2005-03-31
. ¶7 The issue is one of statutory interpretation—a question of law which we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16173 - 2005-03-31
State v. Donald Harris
of law which we review de novo. See id. at 236-37, 548 N.W.2d at 76. Harris first suggests that trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12855 - 2005-03-31
of law which we review de novo. See id. at 236-37, 548 N.W.2d at 76. Harris first suggests that trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12855 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Michael T. v. Norma Briggs
we review de novo, owing no deference to the trial court's decision. State ex rel. Sielen v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10789 - 2017-09-20
we review de novo, owing no deference to the trial court's decision. State ex rel. Sielen v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10789 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
WI APP 157
summary judgment we employ the same methodology as the circuit court and our review is de novo. Green
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34116 - 2014-09-15
summary judgment we employ the same methodology as the circuit court and our review is de novo. Green
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34116 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the legal significance of those facts de novo. See Klinefelter v. Dutch, 161 Wis. 2d 28, 33, 467 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=183554 - 2017-09-21
the legal significance of those facts de novo. See Klinefelter v. Dutch, 161 Wis. 2d 28, 33, 467 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=183554 - 2017-09-21