Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 18691 - 18700 of 29712 for des.
Search results 18691 - 18700 of 29712 for des.
[PDF]
NOTICE
performance was deficient and prejudicial to the defendant is a question of law that we review de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30973 - 2014-09-15
performance was deficient and prejudicial to the defendant is a question of law that we review de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30973 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Verlyn A. Schleusner v. William R. Lamb
review de novo. Zintek v. Perchik, 163 Wis. 2d 439, 454, 471 N.W.2d 522 (Ct. App. 1991), overruled
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2667 - 2017-09-19
review de novo. Zintek v. Perchik, 163 Wis. 2d 439, 454, 471 N.W.2d 522 (Ct. App. 1991), overruled
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2667 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Mark R. Anderson
, which we review de novo. State v. Daggett, 2002 WI App 32, ¶7, 250 Wis. 2d 112, 640 N.W.2d 546
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20383 - 2017-09-21
, which we review de novo. State v. Daggett, 2002 WI App 32, ¶7, 250 Wis. 2d 112, 640 N.W.2d 546
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20383 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Norman J.
during her pregnancy. ¶7 We review de novo whether the trial court has applied the correct legal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5166 - 2017-09-19
during her pregnancy. ¶7 We review de novo whether the trial court has applied the correct legal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5166 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 15, 2012 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeal...
prejudiced the defendant are legal questions we decide de novo. See id. at 236-37. Deficient Performance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82390 - 2012-05-14
prejudiced the defendant are legal questions we decide de novo. See id. at 236-37. Deficient Performance
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82390 - 2012-05-14
COURT OF APPEALS
deference to the trial court’s conclusion. Id. Despite our de novo standard of review, we value the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=63029 - 2011-04-26
deference to the trial court’s conclusion. Id. Despite our de novo standard of review, we value the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=63029 - 2011-04-26
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
(“The interpretation and application of statutes present questions of law that we review de novo.”). 6
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=185974 - 2017-09-21
(“The interpretation and application of statutes present questions of law that we review de novo.”). 6
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=185974 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Orzell P. Grinnage
reviews de novo. See id. at 127-28, 449 N.W.2d at 848. The record, however, fails to disclose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14260 - 2014-09-15
reviews de novo. See id. at 127-28, 449 N.W.2d at 848. The record, however, fails to disclose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14260 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
2021AP1215-CR 2021AP1216-CR 5 de novo, without deference to the circuit court, but benefitting from its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=594255 - 2022-11-30
2021AP1215-CR 2021AP1216-CR 5 de novo, without deference to the circuit court, but benefitting from its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=594255 - 2022-11-30
[PDF]
WI APP 49
is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. Id. at 923. COMPLAINT AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28228 - 2014-09-15
is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. Id. at 923. COMPLAINT AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28228 - 2014-09-15