Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 24571 - 24580 of 30066 for de.
Search results 24571 - 24580 of 30066 for de.
[PDF]
John W. Kneubuhler II v. Labor & industry Review Commission
274, 285, 548 N.W.2d 57, 62 (1996) (de novo review, with no deference to agency, is appropriate when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12723 - 2017-09-21
274, 285, 548 N.W.2d 57, 62 (1996) (de novo review, with no deference to agency, is appropriate when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12723 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Midwest Energy Resources Co. v. Wisconsin Department of Administration
determined. Interpretation of the administrative code presents us with a question of law we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20540 - 2017-09-21
determined. Interpretation of the administrative code presents us with a question of law we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20540 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Raymond D. Wilson
burden of proof. This presents a question of law and we will review it de novo. “An appellate court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11764 - 2017-09-20
burden of proof. This presents a question of law and we will review it de novo. “An appellate court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11764 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the jury if it believed that the Department “ma[de] No. 2022AP1530 8 a reasonable effort
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=613402 - 2023-01-20
the jury if it believed that the Department “ma[de] No. 2022AP1530 8 a reasonable effort
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=613402 - 2023-01-20
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
for ineffective assistance is “a question of law that this court decides de novo.” State v. Domke, 2011 WI 95
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=792608 - 2024-04-24
for ineffective assistance is “a question of law that this court decides de novo.” State v. Domke, 2011 WI 95
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=792608 - 2024-04-24
[PDF]
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Alan D. Eisenberg
erroneous but conclusions of law are reviewed on a de novo basis. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16591 - 2017-09-21
erroneous but conclusions of law are reviewed on a de novo basis. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16591 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
(1985). The question is one of law for our de novo review. See State v. Harrell, 2008 WI App 37, ¶37
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=97330 - 2014-09-15
(1985). The question is one of law for our de novo review. See State v. Harrell, 2008 WI App 37, ¶37
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=97330 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Mark A. Flagstadt
. Despite our de novo standard of review, we hasten to add that we value a trial court’s decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5585 - 2017-09-19
. Despite our de novo standard of review, we hasten to add that we value a trial court’s decision
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5585 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Frontsheet
Interpreting and applying Wis. Stat. § 973.046 presents a question of law, which we review de novo. CED
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=214321 - 2018-06-15
Interpreting and applying Wis. Stat. § 973.046 presents a question of law, which we review de novo. CED
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=214321 - 2018-06-15
[PDF]
Jeffrey Schwigel v. David J. Kohlmann
, however, we employ a de novo standard of review. Id., ¶¶47-48. No. 04-0588 9 ¶19 “[T]he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7345 - 2017-09-20
, however, we employ a de novo standard of review. Id., ¶¶47-48. No. 04-0588 9 ¶19 “[T]he
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7345 - 2017-09-20