Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 24601 - 24610 of 29821 for des.
Search results 24601 - 24610 of 29821 for des.
COURT OF APPEALS
a court has jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo. Socha v. Socha, 183 Wis. 2d 390, 393
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=64703 - 2011-06-28
a court has jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo. Socha v. Socha, 183 Wis. 2d 390, 393
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=64703 - 2011-06-28
2007 WI APP 193
review is de novo. The State concedes that Robinson labels the query a question of law, but notes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29733 - 2007-08-27
review is de novo. The State concedes that Robinson labels the query a question of law, but notes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29733 - 2007-08-27
Bradley A. Hackl v. Cody Hackl
reviews de novo. See Stockbridge Sch. Dist. v. Department of Pub. Instruction Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15174 - 2005-03-31
reviews de novo. See Stockbridge Sch. Dist. v. Department of Pub. Instruction Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15174 - 2005-03-31
Patricia K. Bernhardt v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
an employee engaged in misconduct under § 108.04(5) is a legal conclusion, which we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10149 - 2005-03-31
an employee engaged in misconduct under § 108.04(5) is a legal conclusion, which we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10149 - 2005-03-31
Barron County v. Kathy S.
of law that this court reviews de novo. See id. at 862, 537 N.W.2d at 49‑50. ¶21 Kathy claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15970 - 2005-03-31
of law that this court reviews de novo. See id. at 862, 537 N.W.2d at 49‑50. ¶21 Kathy claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=15970 - 2005-03-31
2008 WI APP 66
and conclusions of law are “great weight deference,” “due deference” and de novo review, or no deference. DILHR v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32108 - 2008-05-27
and conclusions of law are “great weight deference,” “due deference” and de novo review, or no deference. DILHR v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32108 - 2008-05-27
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
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN
de novo the legal question whether those facts meet the legal standard for standing. See id., ¶10
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33800 - 2008-09-23
de novo the legal question whether those facts meet the legal standard for standing. See id., ¶10
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33800 - 2008-09-23
Gary J. Howell v. Orrin Denomie
argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. ¶14 Our de novo evaluation
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18666 - 2005-06-21
argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. ¶14 Our de novo evaluation
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18666 - 2005-06-21
2007 WI APP 2
process and the other on equal protection.[3] Both challenges present questions of law for our de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27522 - 2007-01-30
process and the other on equal protection.[3] Both challenges present questions of law for our de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27522 - 2007-01-30