Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 20441 - 20450 of 30242 for de.
Search results 20441 - 20450 of 30242 for de.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
counsel’s performance was deficient and, if so, prejudicial, are questions of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149111 - 2017-09-21
counsel’s performance was deficient and, if so, prejudicial, are questions of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=149111 - 2017-09-21
Waukesha County v. Dodge County
, or its application to undisputed facts, is a question of law which we decide de novo, without deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14669 - 2005-03-31
, or its application to undisputed facts, is a question of law which we decide de novo, without deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14669 - 2005-03-31
James V. Holschbach v. Washington Park Manor
judgment. We review summary judgments de novo, employing the same well-known methodology the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7518 - 2005-03-31
judgment. We review summary judgments de novo, employing the same well-known methodology the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7518 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
review de novo.”). Given our determination that McCredie’s underlying claims lack merit, counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90616 - 2012-12-18
review de novo.”). Given our determination that McCredie’s underlying claims lack merit, counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90616 - 2012-12-18
Dawn D. Wilson v. Patrick A. Wilson
standard is a question of law which we review de novo. See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 172, 560 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15249 - 2005-03-31
standard is a question of law which we review de novo. See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 172, 560 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15249 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
facts satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonableness is a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31123 - 2007-12-10
facts satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonableness is a question of law, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31123 - 2007-12-10
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the defendant to relief. Id. This is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Bentley, 201 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=111198 - 2017-09-21
the defendant to relief. Id. This is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Bentley, 201 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=111198 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI 1
to be clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45391 - 2014-09-15
to be clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45391 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Thomas D. Gogin
of the Strickland standard. ¶12 We review a determination of prejudice de novo because it presents a question
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2857 - 2017-09-19
of the Strickland standard. ¶12 We review a determination of prejudice de novo because it presents a question
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2857 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Donald Savinski v. Karren Kimble
Act to undisputed facts. We review this question of law de novo. See State ex rel. Blum v. Bd
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13278 - 2017-09-21
Act to undisputed facts. We review this question of law de novo. See State ex rel. Blum v. Bd
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13278 - 2017-09-21