Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1911 - 1920 of 30070 for de.
Search results 1911 - 1920 of 30070 for de.
[PDF]
State v. James P. Henderson
, however, we review the postconviction court’s findings of fact de novo. State v. Herfel, 49 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2249 - 2017-09-19
, however, we review the postconviction court’s findings of fact de novo. State v. Herfel, 49 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2249 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
attorney’s fees. In June, Lukens asked the circuit court to hold a de novo hearing on Dugan’s January 2010
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=94136 - 2013-03-13
attorney’s fees. In June, Lukens asked the circuit court to hold a de novo hearing on Dugan’s January 2010
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=94136 - 2013-03-13
COURT OF APPEALS
do not remand when the issues raised are otherwise addressed by us de novo. See State v. McDermott
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=99684 - 2013-07-22
do not remand when the issues raised are otherwise addressed by us de novo. See State v. McDermott
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=99684 - 2013-07-22
[PDF]
NOTICE
of law that we review de novo. See State v. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, ¶13, 294 Wis. 2d 62, 716 N.W.2d 886
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=58772 - 2014-09-15
of law that we review de novo. See State v. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, ¶13, 294 Wis. 2d 62, 716 N.W.2d 886
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=58772 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
Appeals Unit Department of Justice P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707-7857 Marcella De Peters Law
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191002 - 2017-09-21
Appeals Unit Department of Justice P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707-7857 Marcella De Peters Law
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191002 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
99 CV 105 Responsible Use of Rural and Agricultural Land (RURAL) v.
and de novo review. Id. ¶22 For divergent reasons, RURAL and Rockdale contend that no deference
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17548 - 2017-09-21
and de novo review. Id. ¶22 For divergent reasons, RURAL and Rockdale contend that no deference
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17548 - 2017-09-21
99 CV 105 Responsible Use of Rural and Agricultural Land (RURAL) v.
deference and de novo review. Id. ¶22 For divergent reasons, RURAL and Rockdale contend that no deference
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17548 - 2005-03-31
deference and de novo review. Id. ¶22 For divergent reasons, RURAL and Rockdale contend that no deference
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17548 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
with Smith were left to Stelow’s sole discretion. Smith moved the circuit court for de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1001669 - 2025-08-26
with Smith were left to Stelow’s sole discretion. Smith moved the circuit court for de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1001669 - 2025-08-26
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. No. 2022AP2189 4 ¶5 We review a circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo, applying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=725777 - 2023-11-08
. No. 2022AP2189 4 ¶5 We review a circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo, applying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=725777 - 2023-11-08
Ronald W. Morters v. Aiken & Scoptur
court’s grant of summary judgment is de novo, and we apply the same standards as did the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6535 - 2005-03-31
court’s grant of summary judgment is de novo, and we apply the same standards as did the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6535 - 2005-03-31