Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 17511 - 17520 of 29823 for des.
Search results 17511 - 17520 of 29823 for des.
COURT OF APPEALS
judgment decisions de novo, applying the same methodology and legal standard employed by the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31678 - 2008-01-31
judgment decisions de novo, applying the same methodology and legal standard employed by the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31678 - 2008-01-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
we review de novo. See State v. Love, 2005 WI 116, ¶26, 284 Wis. 2d 111, 700 N.W.2d 62
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=104257 - 2017-09-21
we review de novo. See State v. Love, 2005 WI 116, ¶26, 284 Wis. 2d 111, 700 N.W.2d 62
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=104257 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
that requested a trial de novo with a six-person jury instead of a trial on the record. ¶4 The matter
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=53101 - 2014-09-15
that requested a trial de novo with a six-person jury instead of a trial on the record. ¶4 The matter
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=53101 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
. Stat. § 704.17(2)(b). The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29397 - 2007-06-18
. Stat. § 704.17(2)(b). The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29397 - 2007-06-18
[PDF]
NOTICE
. § 343.305(4) is a question of law that we review de novo. Piddington, 241 Wis. 2d 754, ¶13.4 ¶8 Wick
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33447 - 2014-09-15
. § 343.305(4) is a question of law that we review de novo. Piddington, 241 Wis. 2d 754, ¶13.4 ¶8 Wick
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33447 - 2014-09-15
State v. James R. Brownson
its obligations; rather, Brownson contends that the State de facto withdrew from the agreement because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13207 - 2005-03-31
its obligations; rather, Brownson contends that the State de facto withdrew from the agreement because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13207 - 2005-03-31
State v. James W. Rice, Jr.
is a question of law subject to de novo review.” State v. Garcia, 195 Wis. 2d 68, 73, 535 N.W.2d 124 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2555 - 2005-03-31
is a question of law subject to de novo review.” State v. Garcia, 195 Wis. 2d 68, 73, 535 N.W.2d 124 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2555 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
, so, at the most, the effect of Marchant’s initial comment was de minimis. Moreover, whether a cell
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74181 - 2011-11-21
, so, at the most, the effect of Marchant’s initial comment was de minimis. Moreover, whether a cell
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=74181 - 2011-11-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of historical fact under the clearly erroneous standard, and then review[s] de novo the application
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=164099 - 2017-09-21
of historical fact under the clearly erroneous standard, and then review[s] de novo the application
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=164099 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI APP 74
agency rule. These are questions of law for de novo review. See Apartment Ass’n of S. Cent. Wis., Inc
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145760 - 2017-09-21
agency rule. These are questions of law for de novo review. See Apartment Ass’n of S. Cent. Wis., Inc
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=145760 - 2017-09-21