Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 17521 - 17530 of 29828 for des.
Search results 17521 - 17530 of 29828 for des.
[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]
COURT OF APPEALS
. DISCUSSION ¶15 We review a denial of summary judgment de novo, applying the same well-established
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=115737 - 2017-09-21
. DISCUSSION ¶15 We review a denial of summary judgment de novo, applying the same well-established
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=115737 - 2017-09-21
[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]
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
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]
COURT OF APPEALS
review de novo. See State v. Kleser, 2010 WI 88, ¶36, 328 Wis. 2d 42, 786 N.W.2d 144. ¶9 Jace’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=102169 - 2017-09-21
review de novo. See State v. Kleser, 2010 WI 88, ¶36, 328 Wis. 2d 42, 786 N.W.2d 144. ¶9 Jace’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=102169 - 2017-09-21
[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
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
standards to undisputed facts, which presents a question of law reviewed de novo. See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=805050 - 2024-05-23
standards to undisputed facts, which presents a question of law reviewed de novo. See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=805050 - 2024-05-23
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
control. …. Application of any level of force must de-escalate when control of a subject has been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=89020 - 2012-11-05
control. …. Application of any level of force must de-escalate when control of a subject has been
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=89020 - 2012-11-05
Maurices Incorporated v. Emperor's Kitchen, Inc.
, which the parties dispute. Maurices claims that our review is de novo, as the trial court granted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15685 - 2010-07-26
, which the parties dispute. Maurices claims that our review is de novo, as the trial court granted
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15685 - 2010-07-26