Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 18031 - 18040 of 29823 for des.

[PDF] Frontsheet
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=251320 - 2019-12-13

[PDF] Corey J. Hampton v. David H. Schwarz
court, see id., and is not subject to de novo review, Van Ermen v. DHSS, 84 Wis. 2d 57, 64, 267 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3694 - 2017-09-19

Dane County Department of Human Services v. Teresita J.
” is a question of law which we determine de novo. Cf. Joni B. v. State, 202 Wis.2d 1, 12, 549 N.W.2d 411, 415
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12196 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
a settlement agreement is binding and thus enforceable by a court is a question of law we decide de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=139585 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] NOTICE
appeals.1 ¶8 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same methodology as the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30897 - 2014-09-15

Cincinnati Insurance Company v. AM International, Inc.
of business income. This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo, applying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13481 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] WI App 13
are presented with a question of law, which we review de novo. Loomis v. Wisconsin Pers. Comm’n, 179 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31131 - 2014-09-15

State v. Norman R.
such grounds, see Wis. Stat. § 48.424, was held as a bench trial. Although we review de novo whether the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5321 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
reviews de novo. Id., ¶15. ¶4 The double jeopardy provision protects against multiple punishments
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41391 - 2009-09-29

[PDF] State v. Daniel L. Gaulrapp
under the Fourth Amendment, however, presents a question of law subject to de novo review. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10688 - 2017-09-20