Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 23271 - 23280 of 29832 for des.
Search results 23271 - 23280 of 29832 for des.
State v. Michael L. Scheiwe
review de novo. See State v. Whitman, 160 Wis. 2d 260, 265, 466 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1991). ¶11
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3544 - 2005-03-31
review de novo. See State v. Whitman, 160 Wis. 2d 260, 265, 466 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1991). ¶11
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3544 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
based on inaccurate information are questions of law that we review de novo. State v. Johnson, 153 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28828 - 2007-06-26
based on inaccurate information are questions of law that we review de novo. State v. Johnson, 153 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28828 - 2007-06-26
COURT OF APPEALS
of law we review de novo.” Huml v. Vlazny, 2006 WI 87, ¶13, 293 Wis. 2d 169, 716 N.W.2d 807
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82352 - 2012-05-14
of law we review de novo.” Huml v. Vlazny, 2006 WI 87, ¶13, 293 Wis. 2d 169, 716 N.W.2d 807
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82352 - 2012-05-14
School Board of the Pardeeville Area School District v. Cynthia V. Bomber
and application of a statute to undisputed facts is a question of law which we review de novo, owing no deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12506 - 2005-03-31
and application of a statute to undisputed facts is a question of law which we review de novo, owing no deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12506 - 2005-03-31
2011 WI APP 47
. Wadzinski appeals. DISCUSSION ¶7 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60568 - 2011-04-19
. Wadzinski appeals. DISCUSSION ¶7 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60568 - 2011-04-19
COURT OF APPEALS
. § 808.04(7m) is unconstitutional as applied to Larry. We review the constitutionality of statutes de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=73058 - 2012-01-22
. § 808.04(7m) is unconstitutional as applied to Larry. We review the constitutionality of statutes de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=73058 - 2012-01-22
State v. John E. Stephens
in circuit court. Interpretation and application of a statute are questions of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9457 - 2005-03-31
in circuit court. Interpretation and application of a statute are questions of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9457 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
, the claim came before the circuit court, Judge C. William Foust, for a trial de novo. Hamre, the Pontidoros
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=99235 - 2013-07-10
, the claim came before the circuit court, Judge C. William Foust, for a trial de novo. Hamre, the Pontidoros
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=99235 - 2013-07-10
COURT OF APPEALS
to the circuit court requesting a trial de novo.[3] ¶3 According to the testimony taken
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36592 - 2009-05-26
to the circuit court requesting a trial de novo.[3] ¶3 According to the testimony taken
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36592 - 2009-05-26
Matthew Tyler v. John Bett
for reconsideration. Tyler appeals. ANALYSIS ¶8 We review de novo a circuit court’s dismissal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4504 - 2005-03-31
for reconsideration. Tyler appeals. ANALYSIS ¶8 We review de novo a circuit court’s dismissal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4504 - 2005-03-31