Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 23671 - 23680 of 29810 for des.
Search results 23671 - 23680 of 29810 for des.
COURT OF APPEALS
, ¶¶22–23, 336 Wis. 2d 64, 74–75, 799 N.W.2d 850, 855–856 (quoted source omitted). We review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=113463 - 2014-06-02
, ¶¶22–23, 336 Wis. 2d 64, 74–75, 799 N.W.2d 850, 855–856 (quoted source omitted). We review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=113463 - 2014-06-02
[PDF]
WI 10
that this court reviews de novo. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35354 - 2014-09-15
that this court reviews de novo. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35354 - 2014-09-15
Frontsheet
for summary judgment. "We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, and apply
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=67711 - 2011-07-31
for summary judgment. "We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, and apply
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=67711 - 2011-07-31
[PDF]
WI App 9
to defend its insured, which presents questions of law that we review de novo. See Water Well Sol. Serv
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=234376 - 2019-06-17
to defend its insured, which presents questions of law that we review de novo. See Water Well Sol. Serv
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=234376 - 2019-06-17
Frontsheet
, and Stellpflug Law, S.C., De Pere, and oral argument by Sandra L. Hupfer. For the plaintiffs-appellants
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45181 - 2010-04-04
, and Stellpflug Law, S.C., De Pere, and oral argument by Sandra L. Hupfer. For the plaintiffs-appellants
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45181 - 2010-04-04
Town of Delafield v. Eric Winkelman
——could not be considered de novo by the court in an equity proceeding because the prior legal
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16614 - 2005-03-31
——could not be considered de novo by the court in an equity proceeding because the prior legal
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16614 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
WI APP 227
questions of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, ¶7, 281 Wis. 2d 484, 697
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26784 - 2014-09-15
questions of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, ¶7, 281 Wis. 2d 484, 697
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26784 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Douglas A. Hennig v. Lance W. Ahearn
rulings separately, because each involves our de novo review of the same legal questions. Ahearn’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14373 - 2014-09-15
rulings separately, because each involves our de novo review of the same legal questions. Ahearn’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14373 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
and NR 1. “Standing presents a question of law for our de novo review.” Metropolitan Builders Ass’n
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1030583 - 2025-10-28
and NR 1. “Standing presents a question of law for our de novo review.” Metropolitan Builders Ass’n
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1030583 - 2025-10-28
Todd Deminsky v. Arlington Plastics Machinery
grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, owing no deference to the trial court’s decision. Waters v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3545 - 2005-03-31
grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, owing no deference to the trial court’s decision. Waters v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3545 - 2005-03-31