Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 17001 - 17010 of 29823 for des.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
of No. 2009AP25-CR 7 Marchant’s initial comment was de minimis. Moreover, whether a cell phone “will grab
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=74181 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] NOTICE
the parties dispute whether this court applies a deferential or de novo review to the determination whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=46417 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
is reviewed de novo. State v. Vorburger, 2002 WI 105, ¶32, 255 Wis. 2d 537, 648 N.W.2d 829. 6 ¶11
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=175477 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Stephen J. Weissenberger v. Robert Zebro
426, 430, 303 N.W.2d 122, 125 (Ct. App. 1981). Our review here is de novo. See id.; Bartley v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14549 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] WI APP 6
review the application of those facts to constitutional principles de novo. Id. DISCUSSION ¶6
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=75497 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Charleetra S. Johnson
facts which, if true, would entitle a defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5454 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] WI APP 40
jeopardy has been violated is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Harris, 190 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=166026 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
by telling us that we are reviewing a question of law, using the de novo standard of review. In a seeming
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=137952 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] NOTICE
Metropolitan Sewerage District v. City of Milwaukee, 2005 WI 8, 277 Wis. 2d 635, 691 N.W.2d 658, and Des
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=34892 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] WI 118
.2d 125. We review the referee's conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis. Id. Finally, we
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=55194 - 2014-09-15