Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 20971 - 20980 of 29823 for des.

[PDF] State v. Richard Brown
involves a question of law and therefore our review is de novo. See State v. Martinez, 210 Wis.2d 397
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10750 - 2017-09-20

Walsh Apartments, LLC v. Mac-Gray Co., Inc.
we review de novo. First Nat’l Leasing Corp. v. Madison, 81 Wis. 2d 205, 208, 260 N.W.2d 251 (1977
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3582 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 4, 2014 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of A...
reviewed de novo. Id. DISCUSSION ¶14 Chase T. argues that the search was unlawful because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=120980 - 2014-09-03

COURT OF APPEALS
which, if true, would entitle a defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31385 - 2008-01-07

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VAN DE HEY, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 FITZPATRICK
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=606158 - 2022-12-30

COURT OF APPEALS
constitutional and statutory standards is a question of law, which we review de novo. Id. at 137-38. Discussion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33189 - 2008-06-25

Linda S. Merkel v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
Whether an employee engaged in misconduct is a question of law that we review de novo. Charette v. Labor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5927 - 2005-03-31

Todd Stendahl v. A & M Insulation Co.
, this court reviews the record de novo, applying the same standard and following the same methodology required
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15040 - 2005-03-31

Susan Ulrich v. Glenn Zemke
review de novo. Three & One Co. v. Geilfuss, 178 Wis. 2d 400, 410, 504 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Ct. App. 1993
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4306 - 2005-03-31

Discovery Technologies, Inc. v. Avidcare Corporation
court that anything Avitall or the corporation had was basically of de minimis value. There was nothing
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7372 - 2005-03-31