Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 18541 - 18550 of 29823 for des.
Search results 18541 - 18550 of 29823 for des.
State v. Mark R. Anderson
a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Daggett, 2002 WI App 32, ¶7, 250 Wis. 2d 112, 640 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20383 - 2005-11-22
a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Daggett, 2002 WI App 32, ¶7, 250 Wis. 2d 112, 640 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20383 - 2005-11-22
[PDF]
Stephen G. Walker v. Monte B. Tobin
a question of law which we review de novo. No. 96-0827 -5- See NBZ, Inc. v. Pilarski, 185
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10579 - 2017-09-20
a question of law which we review de novo. No. 96-0827 -5- See NBZ, Inc. v. Pilarski, 185
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10579 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
is a question of law that we determine de novo. State v. Malcom, 2001 WI App 291, ¶12, 249 Wis. 2d 403, 638
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=502282 - 2022-03-31
is a question of law that we determine de novo. State v. Malcom, 2001 WI App 291, ¶12, 249 Wis. 2d 403, 638
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=502282 - 2022-03-31
State v. Derek L. Naff
). But the question of whether a given set of facts constitute probable cause is a question of law which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5069 - 2005-03-31
). But the question of whether a given set of facts constitute probable cause is a question of law which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5069 - 2005-03-31
Michael F. Hupy & Associates v. Michael T. Savaglio
, including the determination of whether their terms are ambiguous, are legal matters that we decide de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5002 - 2005-03-31
, including the determination of whether their terms are ambiguous, are legal matters that we decide de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5002 - 2005-03-31
State v. Marshall R. Reese
apparent exculpatory value when it was destroyed was de minimis at best. Although, as we have seen, Reese
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20870 - 2006-01-09
apparent exculpatory value when it was destroyed was de minimis at best. Although, as we have seen, Reese
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20870 - 2006-01-09
COURT OF APPEALS
on whether it has the power to hear an appeal, we are presented with a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31131 - 2008-01-29
on whether it has the power to hear an appeal, we are presented with a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31131 - 2008-01-29
COURT OF APPEALS
. Stat. § 800.14(1), and requested a trial de novo. The matter was tried before the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35805 - 2009-03-10
. Stat. § 800.14(1), and requested a trial de novo. The matter was tried before the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35805 - 2009-03-10
COURT OF APPEALS
they are clearly erroneous, but we decide de novo the legal questions of whether counsel’s performance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101482 - 2013-09-03
they are clearly erroneous, but we decide de novo the legal questions of whether counsel’s performance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=101482 - 2013-09-03
State v. William H. Roberts
proved those prior convictions. Both issues present questions of law which we review de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4089 - 2005-03-31
proved those prior convictions. Both issues present questions of law which we review de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4089 - 2005-03-31