Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 20311 - 20320 of 29751 for des.
Search results 20311 - 20320 of 29751 for des.
COURT OF APPEALS
review de novo. State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 309–310, 548 N.W.2d 50, 53 (1996). ¶14 Here
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=120154 - 2014-08-25
review de novo. State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 309–310, 548 N.W.2d 50, 53 (1996). ¶14 Here
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=120154 - 2014-08-25
[PDF]
NOTICE
of this case is akin to that of a motion for summary judgment. Consequently, we apply a de novo standard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27291 - 2014-09-15
of this case is akin to that of a motion for summary judgment. Consequently, we apply a de novo standard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27291 - 2014-09-15
State v. Charles G. Montgomery
), and whether counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial is a question of law to be reviewed de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21122 - 2006-01-30
), and whether counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial is a question of law to be reviewed de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21122 - 2006-01-30
State v. Henry T. Skibinski
. ¶6 The standard of review of a question concerning the interpretation of a statute is de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2591 - 2005-03-31
. ¶6 The standard of review of a question concerning the interpretation of a statute is de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2591 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
WI APP 2
is a question of law that we review de novo. Danbeck v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2001 WI 91, ¶10, 245
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=105572 - 2017-09-21
is a question of law that we review de novo. Danbeck v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2001 WI 91, ¶10, 245
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=105572 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI App 22
presents a question of law that we review de novo.” State v. Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, ¶30, 266 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31483 - 2014-09-15
presents a question of law that we review de novo.” State v. Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, ¶30, 266 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31483 - 2014-09-15
[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=92615 - 2014-09-15
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=92615 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
WI APP 33
. § 801.58(1)3 is a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. See DeWitt Ross & Stevens
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=259962 - 2020-07-09
. § 801.58(1)3 is a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. See DeWitt Ross & Stevens
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=259962 - 2020-07-09
State v. Charles E. Jones
and seizures was violated, however, is a question of constitutional fact, which we review de novo. See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18740 - 2005-06-27
and seizures was violated, however, is a question of constitutional fact, which we review de novo. See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18740 - 2005-06-27
Mitchell Bank v. Thomas G. Schanke
review questions of law de novo, benefiting from the trial court’s analysis. Lomax v. Fiedler, 204 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4072 - 2005-03-31
review questions of law de novo, benefiting from the trial court’s analysis. Lomax v. Fiedler, 204 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4072 - 2005-03-31