Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 21631 - 21640 of 29823 for des.

[PDF] Robert E. Ervin v. Great West Casualty Company
summary judgment decisions de novo, applying the same standards employed by the circuit court. Smith v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13893 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
which we review de novo.” Ibid. (citation omitted; italics added). A trial court misuses its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=67302 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
was prejudiced are questions of law, which we review de novo. See id. ¶17 Courts may decide ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=133694 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] NOTICE
de novo. Id. ¶7 A defendant who moves for resentencing on the ground that the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33848 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
of constitutional principles to those facts de novo.” See State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, ¶9, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=233638 - 2019-01-29

[PDF] WI App 60
of a statute to a given set of facts are questions of law that we review de novo. State v. Wiskerchen, 2019
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=247870 - 2019-12-06

State v. Jeffrey L. Watson
the State’s conduct breached the plea agreement is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Wills
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14117 - 2005-03-31

Charles Collier v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County
provision of the contempt statute is a question of statutory construction” subject to de novo review. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5823 - 2005-03-31

State v. Somkhith Neuaone
magistrate” is a question of constitutional fact which we review de novo and without deference to the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18913 - 2005-07-06

State v. Troy B. Baker
of the trial court’s authority under that statute. These are questions of law that we review de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16341 - 2005-03-31