Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 19551 - 19560 of 29823 for des.
Search results 19551 - 19560 of 29823 for des.
[PDF]
NOTICE
is a question of law we review de novo. State v. Ellenbecker, 159 Wis. 2d 91, 94, 464 N.W.2d 427 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=46028 - 2014-09-15
is a question of law we review de novo. State v. Ellenbecker, 159 Wis. 2d 91, 94, 464 N.W.2d 427 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=46028 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
performance was deficient and whether the defendant was prejudiced are questions of law that we decide de
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=877016 - 2024-11-19
performance was deficient and whether the defendant was prejudiced are questions of law that we decide de
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=877016 - 2024-11-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, and uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous. Second, we review de novo the application
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=892290 - 2024-12-26
, and uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous. Second, we review de novo the application
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=892290 - 2024-12-26
COURT OF APPEALS
305. Whether counsel’s performance is deficient or prejudicial is a question of law we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59410 - 2011-02-01
305. Whether counsel’s performance is deficient or prejudicial is a question of law we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59410 - 2011-02-01
State v. Edward W. Ruzga
of law which we review de novo. See State v. Waldner, 206 Wis. 2d 51, 54, 556 N.W.2d 681 (1996); State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26514 - 2006-09-19
of law which we review de novo. See State v. Waldner, 206 Wis. 2d 51, 54, 556 N.W.2d 681 (1996); State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26514 - 2006-09-19
2009 WI APP 181
” makes the contingency indefinite and renders the contract illusory. ¶7 We review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=43921 - 2011-02-07
” makes the contingency indefinite and renders the contract illusory. ¶7 We review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=43921 - 2011-02-07
Jan Raz v. Mary Brown
omitted). Our review of the trial court’s decision is de novo. Id. ¶5 Raz claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4370 - 2005-03-31
omitted). Our review of the trial court’s decision is de novo. Id. ¶5 Raz claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4370 - 2005-03-31
Kenneth A. Folkman, Sr. v. Sheri A. Quamme
The proper construction of an insurance policy is a question of law, which we review de novo. Danbeck v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4888 - 2005-03-31
The proper construction of an insurance policy is a question of law, which we review de novo. Danbeck v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4888 - 2005-03-31
State v. Randy D. Stafford
constitutes a new factor presents a legal issue which we decide de novo. Id. Whether a new factor justifies
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4991 - 2005-03-31
constitutes a new factor presents a legal issue which we decide de novo. Id. Whether a new factor justifies
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4991 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
is a constitutional issue that an appellate court reviews de novo.” Id. A defendant who seeks resentencing because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=80608 - 2012-04-09
is a constitutional issue that an appellate court reviews de novo.” Id. A defendant who seeks resentencing because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=80608 - 2012-04-09