Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 17391 - 17400 of 29823 for des.
Search results 17391 - 17400 of 29823 for des.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the clearly erroneous standard. Id., ¶27. Second, the court applies the law to those facts de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=934383 - 2025-04-01
the clearly erroneous standard. Id., ¶27. Second, the court applies the law to those facts de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=934383 - 2025-04-01
[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/smd/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/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=939103 - 2025-04-10
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
the clearly erroneous standard. Id., ¶27. Second, the court applies the law to those facts de novo. Id
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=934383 - 2025-04-01
the clearly erroneous standard. Id., ¶27. Second, the court applies the law to those facts de novo. Id
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=934383 - 2025-04-01
[PDF]
Kevin J. Kollock v. City of Cumberland Zoning Board of Appeals
is a question of law we review de novo. See Boltz v. Boltz, 133 Wis. 2d 278, 284, 395 N.W.2d 605 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7446 - 2017-09-20
is a question of law we review de novo. See Boltz v. Boltz, 133 Wis. 2d 278, 284, 395 N.W.2d 605 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7446 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
a question of law subject to de novo review. The defendants’ argument ignores the fact that Robert’s duty
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=68297 - 2014-09-15
a question of law subject to de novo review. The defendants’ argument ignores the fact that Robert’s duty
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=68297 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
“defer to the circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are ‘clearly erroneous’” and we apply de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=242057 - 2019-06-13
“defer to the circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are ‘clearly erroneous’” and we apply de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=242057 - 2019-06-13
[PDF]
NOTICE
. The construction of a statute in relation to a given set of facts presents a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28910 - 2014-09-15
. The construction of a statute in relation to a given set of facts presents a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28910 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
(1980). Whether charges are multiplicitous is a question of law that we review de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31303 - 2007-12-26
(1980). Whether charges are multiplicitous is a question of law that we review de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31303 - 2007-12-26
COURT OF APPEALS
we review de novo. Id. ¶7 Robinson’s postconviction motion was denied without a hearing. He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=133770 - 2015-01-28
we review de novo. Id. ¶7 Robinson’s postconviction motion was denied without a hearing. He
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=133770 - 2015-01-28
COURT OF APPEALS
: Linda M. Van De Water, Judge. Judgment affirmed. ¶1 NEUBAUER, J.[1] Daniel J. Fouliard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34031 - 2008-09-16
: Linda M. Van De Water, Judge. Judgment affirmed. ¶1 NEUBAUER, J.[1] Daniel J. Fouliard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34031 - 2008-09-16