Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1921 - 1930 of 30191 for de.
Search results 1921 - 1930 of 30191 for de.
[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]
WI APP 44
determination as to the meaning and application of a statute is a legal conclusion, which we review de novo.5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=372813 - 2021-08-19
determination as to the meaning and application of a statute is a legal conclusion, which we review de novo.5
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=372813 - 2021-08-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
are otherwise addressed by us de novo. See State v. McDermott, 2012 WI App 14, ¶9 n.2, 339 Wis. 2d 316, 810
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=99684 - 2014-09-15
are otherwise addressed by us de novo. See State v. McDermott, 2012 WI App 14, ¶9 n.2, 339 Wis. 2d 316, 810
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=99684 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
should be entertained. ¶8 Angela F., proceeding pro se, petitioned the circuit court for de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=101997 - 2017-09-21
should be entertained. ¶8 Angela F., proceeding pro se, petitioned the circuit court for de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=101997 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
AT&T Communications of Wisconsin v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
. AT&T states that “[i]ssues of statutory construction are questions of law and subject to de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18779 - 2017-09-21
. AT&T states that “[i]ssues of statutory construction are questions of law and subject to de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18779 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI App 59
, THOMAS H. HARTSHORNE, FRANCIS ANNE INNISS, MARGARET INNISS DE SUAREZ AND MARGARET BRYAN CARRASCO
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194452 - 2018-08-23
, THOMAS H. HARTSHORNE, FRANCIS ANNE INNISS, MARGARET INNISS DE SUAREZ AND MARGARET BRYAN CARRASCO
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=194452 - 2018-08-23
[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
Zignego Company, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue
a matter that we review de novo. See L & W Constr. Co. v. DOR, 149 Wis.2d 684, 688-89, 439 N.W.2d 619, 620
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11087 - 2005-03-31
a matter that we review de novo. See L & W Constr. Co. v. DOR, 149 Wis.2d 684, 688-89, 439 N.W.2d 619, 620
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11087 - 2005-03-31
[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