Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 19241 - 19250 of 29823 for des.
Search results 19241 - 19250 of 29823 for des.
COURT OF APPEALS
erroneously exercised its discretion because it applied an incorrect legal standard, we review that issue de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36323 - 2009-04-29
erroneously exercised its discretion because it applied an incorrect legal standard, we review that issue de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36323 - 2009-04-29
2006 WI APP 220
. Stat. § 807.01 to the facts presented, we employ a de novo standard of review. See Ritt v. Dental Care
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26524 - 2006-10-30
. Stat. § 807.01 to the facts presented, we employ a de novo standard of review. See Ritt v. Dental Care
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26524 - 2006-10-30
[PDF]
State v. Robert J. Myers
review de novo. Tahtinen v. MSI Ins. Co., 122 Wis.2d 158, 166, 361 N.W.2d 673, 677 (1985
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9006 - 2017-09-19
review de novo. Tahtinen v. MSI Ins. Co., 122 Wis.2d 158, 166, 361 N.W.2d 673, 677 (1985
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9006 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. William L. Morford
. The application of § 806.07 to ch. 980 involves a question of law that we review de novo. See Williams, 2001 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4377 - 2017-09-19
. The application of § 806.07 to ch. 980 involves a question of law that we review de novo. See Williams, 2001 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4377 - 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=6587 - 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=6587 - 2017-09-19
State v. Terry L. Robertson
and makes that determination de novo. Id. at 283. ¶20 In Liebnitz, the supreme court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2309 - 2005-03-31
and makes that determination de novo. Id. at 283. ¶20 In Liebnitz, the supreme court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2309 - 2005-03-31
State v. Jack Williams
which, if true, would entitle a defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9559 - 2005-03-31
which, if true, would entitle a defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9559 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
by the trial court’s conclusions, and reviews the matter de novo. See id. at 112. ¶18 As noted, Murphy’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=74375 - 2014-09-15
by the trial court’s conclusions, and reviews the matter de novo. See id. at 112. ¶18 As noted, Murphy’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=74375 - 2014-09-15
James H. Cameron v. Jane P. Cameron
interpretation of ch. 767, Stats., which is a question of law we review de novo. State ex rel. Frederick v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8588 - 2005-03-31
interpretation of ch. 767, Stats., which is a question of law we review de novo. State ex rel. Frederick v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8588 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Sean M. Daley
interpretation question, which we review de novo. See State v. DeLain, 2005 WI 52, ¶11, 280 Wis. 2d 51, 695
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=24775 - 2017-09-21
interpretation question, which we review de novo. See State v. DeLain, 2005 WI 52, ¶11, 280 Wis. 2d 51, 695
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=24775 - 2017-09-21