Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2081 - 2090 of 29958 for de.
Search results 2081 - 2090 of 29958 for de.
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
[PDF]
Joshua K. v. Nancy K.
parties” for whom the court should be concerned in custody determinations. Further, he argues that in de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8437 - 2017-09-19
parties” for whom the court should be concerned in custody determinations. Further, he argues that in de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8437 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Charlotte Kotlov
review de novo, Sanchez, 201 Wis.2d at 236, 548 N.W.2d at 76. NO. 96-2911-CR 5 The lawyer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11545 - 2017-09-19
review de novo, Sanchez, 201 Wis.2d at 236, 548 N.W.2d at 76. NO. 96-2911-CR 5 The lawyer
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11545 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kimberly A. Theobald
unless clearly erroneous but conclusions of law are reviewed on a de novo basis. See In re
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16794 - 2017-09-21
unless clearly erroneous but conclusions of law are reviewed on a de novo basis. See In re
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16794 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Jason R. Brown
a legal determination, which this court decides de novo. See id. at 634, 369 N.W.2d at 715. ¶6
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15155 - 2017-09-21
a legal determination, which this court decides de novo. See id. at 634, 369 N.W.2d at 715. ¶6
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15155 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
, 495-96, 192 N.W.2d 877 (1972) (citation omitted). We review de novo whether evidence was sufficient
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90168 - 2012-12-05
, 495-96, 192 N.W.2d 877 (1972) (citation omitted). We review de novo whether evidence was sufficient
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=90168 - 2012-12-05
COURT OF APPEALS
County: robert p. van de hey, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 LUNDSTEN, J.[1] Travanti Schmidt appeals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121951 - 2014-09-17
County: robert p. van de hey, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 LUNDSTEN, J.[1] Travanti Schmidt appeals
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121951 - 2014-09-17
[PDF]
NOTICE
a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 LUNDSTEN
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45733 - 2014-09-15
a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 LUNDSTEN
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45733 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
is a question of law we review de novo. See, e.g., State v. Piddington, 2001 WI 24, ¶13, 241 Wis. 2d 754
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32180 - 2014-09-15
is a question of law we review de novo. See, e.g., State v. Piddington, 2001 WI 24, ¶13, 241 Wis. 2d 754
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32180 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=72524 - 2014-09-15
a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=72524 - 2014-09-15