Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 23941 - 23950 of 29713 for des.

COURT OF APPEALS
review decisions to grant or deny summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30126 - 2007-08-29

Heritage Bank & Trust v. Duane Dietsche
an interpretation of the law of civil procedure. We review that issue de novo. See State v. Turner, 136 Wis.2d 333
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11882 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Frontsheet
5 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶9 We review a summary judgment decision de novo, applying
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=264265 - 2020-08-04

Frontsheet
of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=105627 - 2013-12-12

[PDF] NOTICE
counsel’s conduct amounted to ineffective assistance is a question of law which we review de novo. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26726 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Steven Theuer v. Labor & Industry Review Commission
application to undisputed facts are questions of law that courts generally review under a de novo standard.4
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16377 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
was ineffective is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Id. (italics added). ¶29 In this case
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=125308 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
the constitutional standard for ineffective assistance of counsel is a question of law, which we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=131518 - 2017-09-21

State v. David J. Cleveland
exists in a given case is a question of constitutional law which we review de novo.” Id. We analyze
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16108 - 2005-03-31

Michael Mayek v. Cloverleaf Lakes Sanitary District #1
de novo. See Nelson v. McLaughlin, 211 Wis. 2d 487, 495, 565 N.W.2d 123 (1997). The goal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16185 - 2005-03-31