Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1821 - 1830 of 29959 for de.
Search results 1821 - 1830 of 29959 for de.
[PDF]
NOTICE
has not moved therefor.”). II. ¶8 We review de novo a circuit court’s grant of summary judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30471 - 2014-09-15
has not moved therefor.”). II. ¶8 We review de novo a circuit court’s grant of summary judgment
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30471 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Vern Cramer v. Marinette County
if the County’s approval was illegal. Cramer appeals. DISCUSSION ¶7 We review summary judgment decisions de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5268 - 2017-09-19
if the County’s approval was illegal. Cramer appeals. DISCUSSION ¶7 We review summary judgment decisions de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5268 - 2017-09-19
_WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
. 12-23-2008 Affirmed 2008AP001127 CR State v. De-Yul Thames
/ca/unptbl/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35519 - 2009-02-08
. 12-23-2008 Affirmed 2008AP001127 CR State v. De-Yul Thames
/ca/unptbl/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35519 - 2009-02-08
2007 WI APP 228
grant of summary judgment is de novo. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315–317, 401 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30333 - 2007-10-30
grant of summary judgment is de novo. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315–317, 401 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30333 - 2007-10-30
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
barred by Escalona-Naranjo is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. See State v. Allen
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=802203 - 2024-05-16
barred by Escalona-Naranjo is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. See State v. Allen
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=802203 - 2024-05-16
COURT OF APPEALS
for Waukesha County: Linda M. Van De Water, Judge. Affirmed. Before Vergeront, Lundsten
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=37744 - 2009-07-15
for Waukesha County: Linda M. Van De Water, Judge. Affirmed. Before Vergeront, Lundsten
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=37744 - 2009-07-15
[PDF]
WI APP 54
). We review de novo a circuit court’s ruling on summary judgment, and apply the governing standards
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=61123 - 2014-09-15
). We review de novo a circuit court’s ruling on summary judgment, and apply the governing standards
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=61123 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. § 971.12(1) and (4). They further agree that our review is de novo. See State v. Salinas, 2016 WI 44
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=246192 - 2019-09-05
. § 971.12(1) and (4). They further agree that our review is de novo. See State v. Salinas, 2016 WI 44
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=246192 - 2019-09-05
[PDF]
NOTICE
of the circuit court for Waukesha County: LINDA M. VAN DE WATER, Judge. Affirmed. Before Vergeront
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=37744 - 2014-09-15
of the circuit court for Waukesha County: LINDA M. VAN DE WATER, Judge. Affirmed. Before Vergeront
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=37744 - 2014-09-15
William M. Jacoby v. Jo Ellen Jacoby
concluded that the issue of maintenance should be determined de novo because the court had not specifically
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4930 - 2005-03-31
concluded that the issue of maintenance should be determined de novo because the court had not specifically
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4930 - 2005-03-31