Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 22231 - 22240 of 29823 for des.
Search results 22231 - 22240 of 29823 for des.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
for Miranda purposes is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Id. ¶12 The test to determine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=122986 - 2014-10-02
for Miranda purposes is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Id. ¶12 The test to determine
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=122986 - 2014-10-02
[PDF]
State v. John Henry Balsewicz
performance prejudiced the defendant are questions of law, which we review de novo. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5253 - 2017-09-19
performance prejudiced the defendant are questions of law, which we review de novo. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5253 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Daren E. Maron
a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Woods, 173 Wis.2d 129, 136, 496 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Ct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12232 - 2017-09-21
a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Woods, 173 Wis.2d 129, 136, 496 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Ct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12232 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
erroneous. Id. Then, based on those facts, we review de novo whether a reasonable suspicion justified
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44227 - 2009-12-09
erroneous. Id. Then, based on those facts, we review de novo whether a reasonable suspicion justified
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=44227 - 2009-12-09
COURT OF APPEALS
judgment decisions de novo, using the same methodology as the circuit court. Smith v. Dodgeville Mut. Ins
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93318 - 2013-02-25
judgment decisions de novo, using the same methodology as the circuit court. Smith v. Dodgeville Mut. Ins
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=93318 - 2013-02-25
[PDF]
State v. Somkhith Neuaone
” is a question of constitutional fact which we review de novo and without deference to the trial court’s ruling
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18913 - 2017-09-21
” is a question of constitutional fact which we review de novo and without deference to the trial court’s ruling
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18913 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Frontsheet
a referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=184689 - 2017-09-21
a referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=184689 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. Id. We accept the circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous but review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=184754 - 2017-09-21
. Id. We accept the circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous but review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=184754 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Bernard G. Tainter
354. We review constitutional and statutory interpretation questions de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4441 - 2017-09-19
354. We review constitutional and statutory interpretation questions de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4441 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
clearly erroneous, we uphold the circuit court’s findings of fact, and we review de novo the application
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=247408 - 2019-12-12
clearly erroneous, we uphold the circuit court’s findings of fact, and we review de novo the application
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=247408 - 2019-12-12