Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 24511 - 24520 of 30247 for de.

[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

[PDF] Elizabeth P. v. Mark R.F.
issues of material fact under sec. 805.17(2), 3 Stats., and reviewing the legal issues de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12008 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] NOTICE
. 1984). We review decisions to grant or deny summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30126 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] NOTICE
. Instead, we are confined to the summary judgment record, and we review summary judgments de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32390 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
requirements presents a question of law we review de novo. Id. ¶18 Pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(a)2.c
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=317998 - 2020-12-23

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
is a question of law for de novo review. Id. ¶21 Klinkenberg makes four ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=153579 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
is applicable. WIS. STAT. § 48.415(1)(c). B. Summary Judgment ¶6 This court reviews summary judgment de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=226667 - 2018-11-08

[PDF] State v. T.J. International, Inc.
on stipulated facts and presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. State v
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17559 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
of probable cause is a question of law we review de novo.” Id. at 316 (citations omitted) (concluding
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=66885 - 2014-09-15

Advantage Leasing Corporation v. Novatech Solutions, Inc.
summary judgment decisions de novo, applying the same method employed by the circuit court. Brownelli v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17885 - 2005-05-02