Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 21421 - 21430 of 29832 for des.
Search results 21421 - 21430 of 29832 for des.
COURT OF APPEALS
this ordinance is a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. Cushman, 150 Wis. 2d at 19. ¶12
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32846 - 2008-05-28
this ordinance is a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. Cushman, 150 Wis. 2d at 19. ¶12
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32846 - 2008-05-28
COURT OF APPEALS
. An appellate court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, and applies the same standards and methodology
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30152 - 2007-09-04
. An appellate court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, and applies the same standards and methodology
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30152 - 2007-09-04
State v. Anthony S.
is a question of statutory interpretation which we review de novo. See State v. Dawn M., 189 Wis.2d 480, 484
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15546 - 2005-03-31
is a question of statutory interpretation which we review de novo. See State v. Dawn M., 189 Wis.2d 480, 484
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15546 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
for Waukesha County: Linda M. van de water, Judge. Reversed. ¶1 NEUBAUER, P.J.[1] Jon Paul
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72163 - 2011-10-11
for Waukesha County: Linda M. van de water, Judge. Reversed. ¶1 NEUBAUER, P.J.[1] Jon Paul
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72163 - 2011-10-11
W. George Bowring v. Wisconsin Division of Highways & Transportation
. This presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See Torke/Wirth/Pujara v. Lakeshore Towers, 192 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10308 - 2005-03-31
. This presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See Torke/Wirth/Pujara v. Lakeshore Towers, 192 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10308 - 2005-03-31
Timothy Cepukenas v. Shelli L. Cepukenas
of law which we review de novo. See Ball v. District No. 4, Area Bd., 117 Wis.2d 529, 537, 345 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12662 - 2005-03-31
of law which we review de novo. See Ball v. District No. 4, Area Bd., 117 Wis.2d 529, 537, 345 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12662 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Theodore L. Briggs
facts is a question of law this court reviews de novo. State v. Sostre, 198 Wis.2d 409, 414, 542 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12087 - 2017-09-21
facts is a question of law this court reviews de novo. State v. Sostre, 198 Wis.2d 409, 414, 542 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12087 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Ronald C. Kleutgen v. Robert A. McFadyen, Jr.
of law, which we review de novo. Applied here, the trial court’s determinations as to what the parties
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20079 - 2017-09-21
of law, which we review de novo. Applied here, the trial court’s determinations as to what the parties
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20079 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
rejected Free’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct because the instances were “of such de minimus effect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=67962 - 2014-09-15
rejected Free’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct because the instances were “of such de minimus effect
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=67962 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the deficiency was prejudicial are questions of law that we review de novo. See State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=185298 - 2017-09-21
the deficiency was prejudicial are questions of law that we review de novo. See State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=185298 - 2017-09-21