Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 23531 - 23540 of 29823 for des.
Search results 23531 - 23540 of 29823 for des.
[PDF]
WI APP 28
to testify. This is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. McClaren, 2009 WI 69, ¶14, 318
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60384 - 2014-09-15
to testify. This is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. McClaren, 2009 WI 69, ¶14, 318
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=60384 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Oscar Anderson, Jr.
review de novo. See State v. Kramar, 149 Wis.2d 767, 791, 440 N.W.2d 317, 327 (1989). In determining
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11740 - 2014-09-15
review de novo. See State v. Kramar, 149 Wis.2d 767, 791, 440 N.W.2d 317, 327 (1989). In determining
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11740 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. Second, we review the application of constitutional principles to those facts de novo.” Id. (internal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=92112 - 2014-09-15
. Second, we review the application of constitutional principles to those facts de novo.” Id. (internal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=92112 - 2014-09-15
[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
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
for ineffective assistance of counsel is a question of law, which we review de novo. See id., ¶21. ¶12 Where
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=446743 - 2021-11-03
for ineffective assistance of counsel is a question of law, which we review de novo. See id., ¶21. ¶12 Where
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=446743 - 2021-11-03
State v. Roy J. Jones
reviews de novo. See State v. Ziegenhagen, 73 Wis.2d 656, 664, 245 N.W.2d 656, 660 (1976). Under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13720 - 2005-03-31
reviews de novo. See State v. Ziegenhagen, 73 Wis.2d 656, 664, 245 N.W.2d 656, 660 (1976). Under
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13720 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
Standard of Review. We determine de novo whether the defendant’s postconviction motion alleging
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34028 - 2008-09-16
Standard of Review. We determine de novo whether the defendant’s postconviction motion alleging
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34028 - 2008-09-16
Wendy Lynne Helgemo v. Board of Bar Examiners
rules, but the court makes its legal determinations de novo. In re Bar Admission of Rusch, 171 Wis. 2d
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16551 - 2005-03-31
rules, but the court makes its legal determinations de novo. In re Bar Admission of Rusch, 171 Wis. 2d
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16551 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. 2d 572, ¶63. Whether a jury instruction error is harmless is a question of law that we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=995570 - 2025-08-12
. 2d 572, ¶63. Whether a jury instruction error is harmless is a question of law that we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=995570 - 2025-08-12
COURT OF APPEALS
our review is de novo, we value the trial court’s decision. See M & I First Nat’l Bank v. Episcopal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33820 - 2008-08-26
our review is de novo, we value the trial court’s decision. See M & I First Nat’l Bank v. Episcopal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33820 - 2008-08-26