Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 17261 - 17270 of 29823 for des.
Search results 17261 - 17270 of 29823 for des.
COURT OF APPEALS
of constitutional error de novo, independently applying the facts of a case to constitutional standards. See State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=62842 - 2011-04-13
of constitutional error de novo, independently applying the facts of a case to constitutional standards. See State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=62842 - 2011-04-13
CA Blank Order
, because whether a particular set of facts constitutes a new factor is a question of law that we review de
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103115 - 2013-10-14
, because whether a particular set of facts constitutes a new factor is a question of law that we review de
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=103115 - 2013-10-14
State v. Joel P. Hoffman
is a question of law which we review de novo. Id. As to the performance prong, we determine whether trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4785 - 2005-03-31
is a question of law which we review de novo. Id. As to the performance prong, we determine whether trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4785 - 2005-03-31
State v. John C. Johnson
which this court reviews de novo. See id. at 137-38. ¶8 The Fourth Amendment of the United
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2276 - 2005-03-31
which this court reviews de novo. See id. at 137-38. ¶8 The Fourth Amendment of the United
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2276 - 2005-03-31
State v. Kenneth E. Hopkins
it was prejudicial, are legal issues we review de novo, id. at 236-37. A. Hearsay Statements. ¶8 Hopkins
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4786 - 2005-03-31
it was prejudicial, are legal issues we review de novo, id. at 236-37. A. Hearsay Statements. ¶8 Hopkins
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4786 - 2005-03-31
Daniel Lynch v. Carriage Ridge, LLC
the argument. First, we are reviewing the construction of the agreement de novo and we need not concern
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4984 - 2005-03-31
the argument. First, we are reviewing the construction of the agreement de novo and we need not concern
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4984 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Bryan Lee Hudson
it was prejudicial are legal issues we review de novo. Id. Hudson argues that his counsel should have called
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9831 - 2017-09-19
it was prejudicial are legal issues we review de novo. Id. Hudson argues that his counsel should have called
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9831 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Tony Schroeckenthaler v. Roger Philbrick
small claims actions and a demand for a trial de novo. The circuit court denied the motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6463 - 2017-09-19
small claims actions and a demand for a trial de novo. The circuit court denied the motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6463 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Todd R. Gilbertson
a “new factor” is a question of law, which we review de novo. Michels, 150 Wis.2d at 97, 441 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10481 - 2017-09-20
a “new factor” is a question of law, which we review de novo. Michels, 150 Wis.2d at 97, 441 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10481 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that this court reviews de novo. Id., ¶31. ¶8 Here, Williams argues that the plea colloquy was defective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=920929 - 2025-02-27
that this court reviews de novo. Id., ¶31. ¶8 Here, Williams argues that the plea colloquy was defective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=920929 - 2025-02-27