Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 22091 - 22100 of 30242 for de.
Search results 22091 - 22100 of 30242 for de.
Wayne A. Greenlee v. Rainbow Auction/Realty Co., Inc.
of law based on those facts, de novo. See Department of Revenue v. Exxon Corp., 90 Wis.2d 700, 713, 281
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12513 - 2005-03-31
of law based on those facts, de novo. See Department of Revenue v. Exxon Corp., 90 Wis.2d 700, 713, 281
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12513 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
there are no material facts in dispute. Id., ¶5. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Fortier v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=981589 - 2025-07-10
there are no material facts in dispute. Id., ¶5. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Fortier v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=981589 - 2025-07-10
[PDF]
WI 38
of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=861368 - 2024-10-10
of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=861368 - 2024-10-10
[PDF]
State v. Winnebago County
and examine the record de novo. Clark v. Waupaca County Bd. of Adj., 186 Wis.2d 300, 303, 519 N.W.2d 782
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8338 - 2017-09-19
and examine the record de novo. Clark v. Waupaca County Bd. of Adj., 186 Wis.2d 300, 303, 519 N.W.2d 782
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8338 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Mitchell Bank v. Thomas G. Schanke
unless clearly erroneous. WIS. STAT. § 805.17(2) (1999-2000). We review questions of law de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4072 - 2017-09-20
unless clearly erroneous. WIS. STAT. § 805.17(2) (1999-2000). We review questions of law de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4072 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
standard is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. See State v. Lala, 2009 WI App 137, ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=72231 - 2014-09-15
standard is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. See State v. Lala, 2009 WI App 137, ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=72231 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Joshua Slagoski
of law we review de novo. State v. Michels, 150 Wis. 2d 94, 97, 441 N.W.2d 278 (Ct. App. 1989). A new
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2690 - 2017-09-19
of law we review de novo. State v. Michels, 150 Wis. 2d 94, 97, 441 N.W.2d 278 (Ct. App. 1989). A new
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2690 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
WI APP 74
erroneous”; and (2) we then review No. 2016AP1742-CR 6 de novo “whether those facts constitute
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197642 - 2017-12-12
erroneous”; and (2) we then review No. 2016AP1742-CR 6 de novo “whether those facts constitute
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=197642 - 2017-12-12
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
as necessary. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review ¶5 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=77516 - 2014-09-15
as necessary. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review ¶5 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=77516 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of fact unless clearly erroneous, though we review de novo the ultimate conclusion of whether counsel
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=546984 - 2022-07-26
of fact unless clearly erroneous, though we review de novo the ultimate conclusion of whether counsel
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=546984 - 2022-07-26