Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2071 - 2080 of 29823 for des.
Search results 2071 - 2080 of 29823 for des.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
judgment de novo, using the same familiar methodology as the circuit court. See Green Spring Farms v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=78237 - 2014-09-15
judgment de novo, using the same familiar methodology as the circuit court. See Green Spring Farms v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=78237 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Dante R. Voss
, which we review de novo; whether a new factor warrants a sentence modification is committed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18388 - 2017-09-21
, which we review de novo; whether a new factor warrants a sentence modification is committed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18388 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
version unless otherwise noted. No. 2016AP2222-CR 3 either an actual or de facto life
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=210810 - 2018-04-11
version unless otherwise noted. No. 2016AP2222-CR 3 either an actual or de facto life
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=210810 - 2018-04-11
COURT OF APPEALS
of a statute to a particular set of facts which is a question of law we review de novo. See, e.g., State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32180 - 2008-03-24
of a statute to a particular set of facts which is a question of law we review de novo. See, e.g., State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32180 - 2008-03-24
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
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
review of the sufficiency of the postconviction motion is de novo. Id., ¶9. Because Ehrett’s trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=129364 - 2017-09-21
review of the sufficiency of the postconviction motion is de novo. Id., ¶9. Because Ehrett’s trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=129364 - 2017-09-21
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
COURT OF APPEALS
review of the sufficiency of the postconviction motion is de novo. Id., ¶9. Because Ehrett’s trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=129364 - 2014-11-19
review of the sufficiency of the postconviction motion is de novo. Id., ¶9. Because Ehrett’s trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=129364 - 2014-11-19