Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 19661 - 19670 of 29740 for des.

COURT OF APPEALS
. The operative statute there called for de novo review by the trial court. Soo Line commenced an action
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=98639 - 2013-06-27

[PDF] State v. Nicholas D. Kasten
deficient performance was prejudicial is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7583 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel is a legal determination, which this court decides de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=210679 - 2018-04-11

State v. Kristen K. Cleaver
purposes is a question of law, which we review de novo based on the facts as found by the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20061 - 2005-10-25

State v. Tyrone Rimmer
a person’s consent for a warrantless search was voluntary, are matters of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=19092 - 2005-07-25

State v. Alonzo Peavy
that we review de novo. State v. Weeks, 165 Wis.2d 200, 208, 477 N.W.2d 642, 645 (Ct. App. 1991). We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8381 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Robin W. Hancock v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
judgment. We review grants of summary judgment de novo. McCarty v. Covelli, 182 Wis.2d 342, 345, 514
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9451 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS
the context of summary judgment methodology, arguing that we should consider de novo whether there were
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=88840 - 2012-10-31

State v. John C. Thorstad
Whether a search is reasonable is a question of constitutional law that we review de novo. See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15717 - 2005-03-31

Riverwood Park, Inc. v. Central Ready-Mixed Concrete, Inc.
on summary judgment de novo, applying the same methodology as the trial court. Armstrong v. Milwaukee Mut
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8097 - 2005-03-31