Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 17571 - 17580 of 29823 for des.

[PDF] NOTICE
review a motion for summary judgment de novo, using the same methodology as the trial court. Old
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29624 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Tyrone Jackson
court's application of the penalty enhancers is de novo. State v. Zimmerman, 185 Wis.2d 549, 554, 518
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9180 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] Jeffrey S. * v. Thomas A.f. *
the issue as one of law, our review is de novo. And they bolster their argument by referring us to cases
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9151 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
material facts entitling the defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de novo. Id., ¶9
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=447887 - 2021-11-02

[PDF] NOTICE
. § 704.17(2)(b). The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law, which we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29397 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Bernard Willkomm v. Romeo Soriano, M.D.
. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Affirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3618 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
that the trial court erred in denying his postconviction motion without a hearing. We review de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=214612 - 2018-06-27

[PDF] Christopher Aslakson v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.
review a circuit court’s grant or denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint de novo. Doe v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21200 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. James R. Boardman
will consider de novo whether the circuit court has erred in the application of law to undisputed facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13084 - 2017-09-21

State v. Robert E. Frankwick
). The interpretation of statutes, on the other hand, is a question of law we review de novo. See Grosse v. Protective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14432 - 2005-03-31