Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 22751 - 22760 of 29942 for des.
Search results 22751 - 22760 of 29942 for des.
State v. John S. Provo
counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial de novo. Id. at 128. ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6624 - 2005-03-31
counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial de novo. Id. at 128. ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6624 - 2005-03-31
2011 WI APP 49
therefore apply de novo review. DISCUSSION ¶18 Wisconsin Stat. § 111.70(1)(a) of MERA imposes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60745 - 2011-04-19
therefore apply de novo review. DISCUSSION ¶18 Wisconsin Stat. § 111.70(1)(a) of MERA imposes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60745 - 2011-04-19
[PDF]
WI App 35
we review de novo. Partenfelder v. Rohde, 2014 WI 80, ¶25, 356 Wis. 2d 492, 850 N.W.2d 896
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=241535 - 2019-08-13
we review de novo. Partenfelder v. Rohde, 2014 WI 80, ¶25, 356 Wis. 2d 492, 850 N.W.2d 896
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=241535 - 2019-08-13
State v. Gerald A. Edson
of multiplicity de novo, owing no deference to the trial court's conclusions. State v. Bergeron, 162 Wis.2d 521
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10356 - 2005-03-31
of multiplicity de novo, owing no deference to the trial court's conclusions. State v. Bergeron, 162 Wis.2d 521
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10356 - 2005-03-31
WI app 117 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2012AP2049-CR Complete Titl...
if the defendant does not make a sufficient showing on one, see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, and we decide de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102930 - 2013-10-29
if the defendant does not make a sufficient showing on one, see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, and we decide de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102930 - 2013-10-29
Rosella F. Doll v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
, a question of law we review de novo. State v. Michels, 141 Wis.2d 81, 87, 414 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Ct. App. 1987
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13226 - 2005-03-31
, a question of law we review de novo. State v. Michels, 141 Wis.2d 81, 87, 414 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Ct. App. 1987
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13226 - 2005-03-31
2009 WI APP 84
Questions of statutory interpretation and application are questions of law subject to our de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36553 - 2011-02-07
Questions of statutory interpretation and application are questions of law subject to our de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36553 - 2011-02-07
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
interpretations are reviewed de novo by this court). ¶9 Instead, the primary focus of McNeil’s arguments
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=913069 - 2025-02-13
interpretations are reviewed de novo by this court). ¶9 Instead, the primary focus of McNeil’s arguments
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=913069 - 2025-02-13
[PDF]
Scott R. Meyer v. Michigan Mutual Insurance Co.
to review this case de novo, we might make a different determination, but because the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14837 - 2017-09-21
to review this case de novo, we might make a different determination, but because the circuit court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14837 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Joseph N. Francis v. Maureen M. Francis
of the appropriate legal standard to a set of facts presents a question of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7565 - 2017-09-19
of the appropriate legal standard to a set of facts presents a question of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7565 - 2017-09-19