Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 23911 - 23920 of 30021 for de.
Search results 23911 - 23920 of 30021 for de.
James Allen v. Juan Guerrero
for judgment on the pleadings is a question of law that we decide de novo. Arneson v. Jezwinski, 225 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6506 - 2005-03-31
for judgment on the pleadings is a question of law that we decide de novo. Arneson v. Jezwinski, 225 Wis. 2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6506 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
erroneous. State v. Blackman, 2017 WI 77, ¶25, 377 Wis. 2d 339, 898 N.W.2d 774. However, we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=873065 - 2024-11-07
erroneous. State v. Blackman, 2017 WI 77, ¶25, 377 Wis. 2d 339, 898 N.W.2d 774. However, we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=873065 - 2024-11-07
State v. Peter R. Martel
-offender registration, which is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Oakley, 2000 WI 37, ¶6
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16639 - 2005-03-31
-offender registration, which is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Oakley, 2000 WI 37, ¶6
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16639 - 2005-03-31
Monroe County Department of Human Services v. Maureen J.
§ 905.04, Stats., correctly. This presents a question of law that we review de novo. See Steinberg v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12678 - 2005-03-31
§ 905.04, Stats., correctly. This presents a question of law that we review de novo. See Steinberg v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12678 - 2005-03-31
TFJ Nominee Trust v. State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Resolution of this appeal requires interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 32.05, a question of law we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2877 - 2005-03-31
Resolution of this appeal requires interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 32.05, a question of law we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2877 - 2005-03-31
Stanley Washington v. David H. Schwarz
id., and is not a de novo review. See Van Ermen v. DHSS, 84 Wis. 2d 57, 64, 267 N.W.2d 17 (1978
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2097 - 2005-03-31
id., and is not a de novo review. See Van Ermen v. DHSS, 84 Wis. 2d 57, 64, 267 N.W.2d 17 (1978
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2097 - 2005-03-31
State v. John Patrick Feeney
the statute of limitations has expired presents us with a question of law we review de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20657 - 2005-12-19
the statute of limitations has expired presents us with a question of law we review de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20657 - 2005-12-19
[PDF]
SCR CHAPTER 21
of license reinstatement petitions. The office has discretion whether to investigate and to prosecute de
/sc/scrule/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=171241 - 2017-09-21
of license reinstatement petitions. The office has discretion whether to investigate and to prosecute de
/sc/scrule/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=171241 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Roger H. Leiskau
denied the motion. Although we review the record de novo for purposes of deciding whether to grant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8522 - 2017-09-19
denied the motion. Although we review the record de novo for purposes of deciding whether to grant
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8522 - 2017-09-19
State v. Joseph C. Frey
the defendant is a question of law which we review de novo. Id. A defendant is prejudiced if he or she can
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8721 - 2005-03-31
the defendant is a question of law which we review de novo. Id. A defendant is prejudiced if he or she can
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8721 - 2005-03-31