Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 20391 - 20400 of 29828 for des.
Search results 20391 - 20400 of 29828 for des.
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
Monroe County Department of Human Services v. Lee J. B.
we decide de novo. See State v. Patricia A.P., 195 Wis. 2d 855, 862-63, 537 N.W.2d 47 (Ct. App. 1995
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2657 - 2005-03-31
we decide de novo. See State v. Patricia A.P., 195 Wis. 2d 855, 862-63, 537 N.W.2d 47 (Ct. App. 1995
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2657 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
judgments is de novo; we apply the same methodology as the trial court and consider the legal issues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=80533 - 2012-04-10
judgments is de novo; we apply the same methodology as the trial court and consider the legal issues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=80533 - 2012-04-10
Michael F. Dubis v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation
Here, the issue presents a question of statutory interpretation which we review de novo. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16087 - 2005-03-31
Here, the issue presents a question of statutory interpretation which we review de novo. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16087 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Chue Moua
included offense is a question of law, which the appellate court reviews de novo. State v. Kramar, 149
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11684 - 2017-09-19
included offense is a question of law, which the appellate court reviews de novo. State v. Kramar, 149
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11684 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
WI 19
erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=78957 - 2014-09-15
erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=78957 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Rick L. Edwards
presents a question of law that we review de novo. See State ex rel. Hensley v. Endicott, 2001 WI 105
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6310 - 2017-09-19
presents a question of law that we review de novo. See State ex rel. Hensley v. Endicott, 2001 WI 105
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6310 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of the law applicable to the facts of a given case” is a question of law we review de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=180952 - 2017-09-21
of the law applicable to the facts of a given case” is a question of law we review de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=180952 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
.2d at 389. II. ¶10 We review de novo a trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Green Spring
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26884 - 2014-09-15
.2d at 389. II. ¶10 We review de novo a trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Green Spring
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26884 - 2014-09-15
State v. Paul Alan LeRose
is a question of law which we review de novo without deference to the trial court’s conclusion. State v. Moats
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15681 - 2005-03-31
is a question of law which we review de novo without deference to the trial court’s conclusion. State v. Moats
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15681 - 2005-03-31