Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 24571 - 24580 of 29823 for des.
Search results 24571 - 24580 of 29823 for des.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
to order restitution presents a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=336154 - 2021-02-17
to order restitution presents a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=336154 - 2021-02-17
[PDF]
Wisconsin Coalition for Voter Participation, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Elections Board
and administrative rules.4 ¶11 We, of course, review the circuit court’s decision de novo, as it involves
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16051 - 2017-09-21
and administrative rules.4 ¶11 We, of course, review the circuit court’s decision de novo, as it involves
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16051 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
for ineffective assistance of counsel is a question of law, which we review de novo. Id., ¶21. We need
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=257595 - 2020-04-15
for ineffective assistance of counsel is a question of law, which we review de novo. Id., ¶21. We need
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=257595 - 2020-04-15
[PDF]
State v. Romell Lampley
on numerous grounds. He also requested a de novo sentencing hearing for the purpose of presenting expert
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2342 - 2017-09-19
on numerous grounds. He also requested a de novo sentencing hearing for the purpose of presenting expert
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2342 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
we review de novo. Buhler, 139 Wis. 2d at 198. “No motion challenging the sufficiency
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=144455 - 2017-09-21
we review de novo. Buhler, 139 Wis. 2d at 198. “No motion challenging the sufficiency
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=144455 - 2017-09-21
State v. Clarence Givens
, not a factual one,’” which we review de novo. United States v. Davis, 15 F.3d 1393, 1415 (7th Cir. 1994
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12420 - 2015-05-05
, not a factual one,’” which we review de novo. United States v. Davis, 15 F.3d 1393, 1415 (7th Cir. 1994
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12420 - 2015-05-05
COURT OF APPEALS
Evans’s testimony and only required that the jurors use their common sense, not medical knowledge. See De
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=106756 - 2014-01-14
Evans’s testimony and only required that the jurors use their common sense, not medical knowledge. See De
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=106756 - 2014-01-14
Town of Norway Sanitary District #1 v. Racine County Drainage Board of Commissioners
is a question of law which we may review de novo. See DILHR v. LIRC, 161 Wis.2d 231, 245-46, 467 N.W.2d 545
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13085 - 2005-03-31
is a question of law which we may review de novo. See DILHR v. LIRC, 161 Wis.2d 231, 245-46, 467 N.W.2d 545
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13085 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
to a particular party is a question of law that we review de novo. See State v. Herrmann, 2015 WI App 97, ¶6
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=235463 - 2019-02-20
to a particular party is a question of law that we review de novo. See State v. Herrmann, 2015 WI App 97, ¶6
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=235463 - 2019-02-20
Erik Jensen v. David D. McPherson, M.D.
involves the interpretation of a statute, a question of law which we review de novo. See Agnes T. v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4533 - 2005-03-31
involves the interpretation of a statute, a question of law which we review de novo. See Agnes T. v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4533 - 2005-03-31