Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 23941 - 23950 of 30021 for de.
Search results 23941 - 23950 of 30021 for de.
[PDF]
State v. Joseph C. Frey
prejudiced the defendant is a question of law which we review de novo. Id. A defendant is prejudiced if he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8721 - 2017-09-19
prejudiced the defendant is a question of law which we review de novo. Id. A defendant is prejudiced if he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8721 - 2017-09-19
John Hansen v. New Holland North America, Inc.
de novo. See Kloes v. Eau Claire Cavalier Baseball Ass'n, 170 Wis.2d 77, 86, 487 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Ct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12286 - 2005-03-31
de novo. See Kloes v. Eau Claire Cavalier Baseball Ass'n, 170 Wis.2d 77, 86, 487 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Ct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12286 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Richard G. White
of law that we review de novo. Id., 153 Wis. 2d at 128, 449 N.W.2d at 848. We give special scrutiny
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6424 - 2017-09-19
of law that we review de novo. Id., 153 Wis. 2d at 128, 449 N.W.2d at 848. We give special scrutiny
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6424 - 2017-09-19
David Hull v. Medical Associates of Menomonee Falls, Ltd.
. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 192 Wis.2d 347, 531 N.W.2d 386 (Ct. App. 1995), to argue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12418 - 2005-03-31
. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 192 Wis.2d 347, 531 N.W.2d 386 (Ct. App. 1995), to argue
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12418 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the application of law to those facts de novo. See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶15, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84417 - 2014-09-15
the application of law to those facts de novo. See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶15, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84417 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
evidence. We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, but in the light most favorable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=338620 - 2021-02-24
evidence. We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, but in the light most favorable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=338620 - 2021-02-24
COURT OF APPEALS
as to “whether those changes are substantial is a question of law which we review de novo.” Id. ¶30
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102554 - 2013-10-07
as to “whether those changes are substantial is a question of law which we review de novo.” Id. ¶30
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=102554 - 2013-10-07
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
requires interpretation of the statutes, which is a matter of law we review de novo. See Frisch v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106010 - 2017-09-21
requires interpretation of the statutes, which is a matter of law we review de novo. See Frisch v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106010 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
the constitutional protection against double jeopardy is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32170 - 2008-03-19
the constitutional protection against double jeopardy is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32170 - 2008-03-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel is a legal determination, which this court decides de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=190510 - 2017-09-21
the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel is a legal determination, which this court decides de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=190510 - 2017-09-21