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.
State v. Derrick Sandles
[this court] review[s] de novo.” State v. Young, 212 Wis. 2d 417, 424, 569 N.W.2d 84 (1997). ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5719 - 2005-03-31
[this court] review[s] de novo.” State v. Young, 212 Wis. 2d 417, 424, 569 N.W.2d 84 (1997). ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5719 - 2005-03-31
State v. Diane M. Mikic
performance prejudiced the defendant is a question of law which we review de novo. See id. Here, we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12297 - 2005-03-31
performance prejudiced the defendant is a question of law which we review de novo. See id. Here, we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12297 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
WI APP 262
reasonable interpretation available. We apply de novo review when “there is no evidence that the agency
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31005 - 2014-09-15
reasonable interpretation available. We apply de novo review when “there is no evidence that the agency
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31005 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
interpret right of first refusal language as we do other contract language, applying de novo review. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=169972 - 2017-09-21
interpret right of first refusal language as we do other contract language, applying de novo review. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=169972 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
to us on summary judgment. We perform summary judgment analysis de novo, applying the same method
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29936 - 2014-09-15
to us on summary judgment. We perform summary judgment analysis de novo, applying the same method
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29936 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Jack R. Hayes
is a question of law we review de novo. Id. Because the trial court did not rule on the deficiency component
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4784 - 2017-09-19
is a question of law we review de novo. Id. Because the trial court did not rule on the deficiency component
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4784 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
a question of law, such as statutory interpretation, we review the trial court’s decision de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84841 - 2014-09-15
a question of law, such as statutory interpretation, we review the trial court’s decision de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84841 - 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
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]
Jasmina Ivankovic v. Barbara Giuliani
standard in determining damages is a question of law which we review de novo. See Jauquet Lumber Co. v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15378 - 2017-09-21
standard in determining damages is a question of law which we review de novo. See Jauquet Lumber Co. v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15378 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Joseph F. Jiles
review de novo. Id., 201 Wis. 2d at 310, 548 N.W.2d at 53. 5 ¶12 First, Jiles alleges that his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4841 - 2017-09-19
review de novo. Id., 201 Wis. 2d at 310, 548 N.W.2d at 53. 5 ¶12 First, Jiles alleges that his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4841 - 2017-09-19