Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 16961 - 16970 of 29866 for des.
Search results 16961 - 16970 of 29866 for des.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
erroneous. State v. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, ¶13, 299 Wis. 2d 675, 729 N.W.2d 182. We review de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=939103 - 2025-04-10
erroneous. State v. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, ¶13, 299 Wis. 2d 675, 729 N.W.2d 182. We review de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=939103 - 2025-04-10
COURT OF APPEALS
that this court reviews de novo. Id., ¶33. ¶13 We conclude that Johnson has not demonstrated a new factor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=106275 - 2014-01-06
that this court reviews de novo. Id., ¶33. ¶13 We conclude that Johnson has not demonstrated a new factor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=106275 - 2014-01-06
CA Blank Order
in substance and that the defendant’s statements were voluntary. Id. We review de novo the ultimate issue
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=144548 - 2015-07-13
in substance and that the defendant’s statements were voluntary. Id. We review de novo the ultimate issue
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=144548 - 2015-07-13
Frontsheet
a referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous; conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104581 - 2013-11-19
a referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous; conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104581 - 2013-11-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
is an issue that this court reviews de novo. Waukesha Cty. v. S.L.L., 2019 WI 66, ¶10, 387 Wis. 2d 333, 929
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=288753 - 2020-09-17
is an issue that this court reviews de novo. Waukesha Cty. v. S.L.L., 2019 WI 66, ¶10, 387 Wis. 2d 333, 929
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=288753 - 2020-09-17
COURT OF APPEALS
was denied the constitutional right to self-representation, however, is a question that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=76219 - 2012-01-09
was denied the constitutional right to self-representation, however, is a question that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=76219 - 2012-01-09
State v. Robert E. Frankwick
). The interpretation of statutes, on the other hand, is a question of law we review de novo. See Grosse v. Protective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14432 - 2005-03-31
). The interpretation of statutes, on the other hand, is a question of law we review de novo. See Grosse v. Protective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14432 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
. Second, we review the determination of reasonable suspicion de novo. Id. ¶8 Under the Fourth
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85795 - 2012-08-07
. Second, we review the determination of reasonable suspicion de novo. Id. ¶8 Under the Fourth
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=85795 - 2012-08-07
State v. Victor K. Johnson
that we review de novo. Id. at 128. Lastly, we need not address both Strickland prongs if the defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5793 - 2005-03-31
that we review de novo. Id. at 128. Lastly, we need not address both Strickland prongs if the defendant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5793 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
prejudicial, however, are questions of law which we review and decide de novo. Id. ¶12 An ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=223827 - 2018-10-24
prejudicial, however, are questions of law which we review and decide de novo. Id. ¶12 An ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=223827 - 2018-10-24