Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 18441 - 18450 of 29942 for des.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
in a criminal prosecution is a question of law” which this court reviews de novo. State v. Smith, 2012 WI 91
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=612601 - 2023-01-24

[PDF] State v. Johnny M. McAdoo
de novo. State v. Ziegenhagen, 73 Wis. 2d 656, 664, 245 N.W.2d 656 (1976). The trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4343 - 2017-09-19

Halquist Stone Company, Inc. v. Town of Brothertown Planning and Zoning Committee
. The reviewing court is not required to supply its own factual conclusions through a de novo search of the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12029 - 2005-03-31

State v. Jeffrey H. Bahn
review de novo. See id. Bahn argues that Jeff Larson was an essential defense witness who
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11787 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
the defendant to relief. This is a question of law that we review de novo. If the motion raises such facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=69079 - 2011-08-03

Sauk County v. Employers Insurance of Wausau
We review de novo a circuit court’s grant of summary judgment. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14852 - 2005-03-31

State v. Curtis L. Levy, Jr.
performance was deficient, and whether that behavior prejudiced the defense, are questions of law we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17649 - 2005-04-11

COURT OF APPEALS
review de novo whether a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=78627 - 2012-02-29

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
. No. 2017AP1527 6 and application of a statute are questions of law that this court reviews de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=213224 - 2018-05-22

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
court’s decision as to whether counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=95661 - 2014-09-15