Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1981 - 1990 of 29823 for des.
Search results 1981 - 1990 of 29823 for des.
Amerequip Corporation -- New Holstein v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
presents a question of law which this court may review de novo. We disagree. Even when the facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14715 - 2005-03-31
presents a question of law which this court may review de novo. We disagree. Even when the facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14715 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
. We review the sufficiency of the defendant’s allegations de novo, based on the four corners
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71879 - 2011-10-05
. We review the sufficiency of the defendant’s allegations de novo, based on the four corners
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=71879 - 2011-10-05
[PDF]
State v. Craig A. Sommer
factor presents a legal issue which we decide de novo. Id. Whether a new factor justifies sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8157 - 2017-09-19
factor presents a legal issue which we decide de novo. Id. Whether a new factor justifies sentence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8157 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
for Grant County: robert p. van de hey, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 HIGGINBOTHAM, J.[1] Steven Cushman
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72524 - 2011-10-19
for Grant County: robert p. van de hey, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 HIGGINBOTHAM, J.[1] Steven Cushman
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72524 - 2011-10-19
COURT OF APPEALS
motion. Discussion ¶8 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=135469 - 2015-02-23
motion. Discussion ¶8 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=135469 - 2015-02-23
Johnny Lacy, Jr. v. James LaBelle
for summary judgment in the trial court. Our review of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12496 - 2005-03-31
for summary judgment in the trial court. Our review of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12496 - 2005-03-31
Clyde Sukanen v. School District of Monroe
judgment de novo, applying the same methodology as the trial court. Tower Ins. Co. v. Chang, 230 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4415 - 2005-03-31
judgment de novo, applying the same methodology as the trial court. Tower Ins. Co. v. Chang, 230 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4415 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
James Munroe v. Kenneth Morgan
(1993) (citation omitted). We review the legal sufficiency of the complaint de novo, without
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11027 - 2017-09-19
(1993) (citation omitted). We review the legal sufficiency of the complaint de novo, without
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11027 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
NOTICE
for Waukesha County: Linda M. Van De Water, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded with directions. ¶1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45665 - 2014-09-15
for Waukesha County: Linda M. Van De Water, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded with directions. ¶1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45665 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
findings de novo under the documentary evidence exception to the clearly erroneous standard of review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=230546 - 2018-12-11
findings de novo under the documentary evidence exception to the clearly erroneous standard of review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=230546 - 2018-12-11