Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 17121 - 17130 of 29823 for des.
Search results 17121 - 17130 of 29823 for des.
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
COURT OF APPEALS
. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶6 This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo, applying the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71554 - 2011-09-28
. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶6 This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo, applying the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71554 - 2011-09-28
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
evidence.” Id.; WIS. STAT. § 102.23(6). We review LIRC’s legal conclusions de novo, but “in evaluating
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=507076 - 2022-04-13
evidence.” Id.; WIS. STAT. § 102.23(6). We review LIRC’s legal conclusions de novo, but “in evaluating
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=507076 - 2022-04-13
State v. Anthony Lentowski
¾that of resentencing the defendant¾de novo. We conclude, however, that a brief discussion of the constitutional
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11403 - 2005-03-31
¾that of resentencing the defendant¾de novo. We conclude, however, that a brief discussion of the constitutional
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11403 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
that this court reviews de novo. See Welin v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2006 WI 81, ¶16, 292 Wis. 2d 73, 717
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=91544 - 2013-01-14
that this court reviews de novo. See Welin v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2006 WI 81, ¶16, 292 Wis. 2d 73, 717
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=91544 - 2013-01-14
State v. Karen A.O.
. APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Waupaca County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10931 - 2005-03-31
. APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Waupaca County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10931 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
de novo No. 2024AP957 6 and without deference to the Commission’s decision. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=965316 - 2025-06-04
de novo No. 2024AP957 6 and without deference to the Commission’s decision. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=965316 - 2025-06-04
Michael A. Downey v. John P. Kendall
our standard of review is de novo because the trial court made no “findings of fact but only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9436 - 2005-03-31
our standard of review is de novo because the trial court made no “findings of fact but only
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9436 - 2005-03-31
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
COURT OF APPEALS
of law we review de novo, see State v. Rohl, 160 Wis. 2d 325, 329, 466 N.W.2d 208 (Ct. App. 1991). ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=122265 - 2014-09-22
of law we review de novo, see State v. Rohl, 160 Wis. 2d 325, 329, 466 N.W.2d 208 (Ct. App. 1991). ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=122265 - 2014-09-22