Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 19191 - 19200 of 29823 for des.
Search results 19191 - 19200 of 29823 for des.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
principles to those facts de novo.” Id. ¶13 Dancel contends that the lineup in this case was impermissibly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=700811 - 2023-09-12
principles to those facts de novo.” Id. ¶13 Dancel contends that the lineup in this case was impermissibly
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=700811 - 2023-09-12
COURT OF APPEALS
that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief. This is a question of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=87403 - 2012-09-24
that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief. This is a question of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=87403 - 2012-09-24
COURT OF APPEALS
of law that we review de novo. State ex rel. Steldt v. McCaughtry, 2000 WI App 176, ¶11, 238 Wis. 2d 393
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=61779 - 2011-03-28
of law that we review de novo. State ex rel. Steldt v. McCaughtry, 2000 WI App 176, ¶11, 238 Wis. 2d 393
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=61779 - 2011-03-28
State v. Peter A. Moss
.2d 518 (Ct. App. 1988). We review interpretations of statutes de novo. Id. ¶22 In this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3161 - 2005-03-31
.2d 518 (Ct. App. 1988). We review interpretations of statutes de novo. Id. ¶22 In this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3161 - 2005-03-31
Paul S. Gantner v. Diane Jo Gantner
shown at trial amounted to only $255. Any effect of this disputed fact is de minimis. [4] We deem
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3809 - 2005-03-31
shown at trial amounted to only $255. Any effect of this disputed fact is de minimis. [4] We deem
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3809 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Waukesha County v. Steven H.
that performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness is a question of law we review de novo, see
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14674 - 2017-09-21
that performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness is a question of law we review de novo, see
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14674 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Jamie M. Grosse
double jeopardy rights. This is a question of law that we review de novo. See State v. Thierfelder
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11116 - 2017-09-19
double jeopardy rights. This is a question of law that we review de novo. See State v. Thierfelder
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11116 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
conduct and strategy, will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous, but we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=711920 - 2023-10-11
conduct and strategy, will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous, but we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=711920 - 2023-10-11
[PDF]
State v. Keith M. Carey
). ¶8 Statutory construction is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Leitner, 2002 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6585 - 2017-09-19
). ¶8 Statutory construction is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Leitner, 2002 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6585 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Keith M. Carey
). ¶8 Statutory construction is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Leitner, 2002 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6584 - 2017-09-19
). ¶8 Statutory construction is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Leitner, 2002 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6584 - 2017-09-19