Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 24711 - 24720 of 30247 for de.

TFJ Nominee Trust v. State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Resolution of this appeal requires interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 32.05, a question of law we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2877 - 2013-03-17

Wisconsin Coalition for Voter Participation, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Elections Board
the circuit court’s decision de novo, as it involves a question of law: the application of statutes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16051 - 2005-03-31

WI App 133 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2011AP2372-CR Complete Titl...
we review de novo. Id., ¶5. ¶11 A statute may be challenged on its face as overbroad even
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=89025 - 2013-11-17

COURT OF APPEALS
de novo. Id. “A defendant who requests resentencing due to the circuit court’s use of inaccurate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33656 - 2008-08-05

State v. Darcy Stafford
that performance prejudiced the defense, are questions of law which we review de novo. State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11541 - 2015-01-27

Rite-Hite Corporation v. Board of Review of the Village of Brown Deer
by the trial court's thoughtful and comprehensive written decision, our review is de novo. See id., 164 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11657 - 2005-03-31

WI App 29 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2013AP453-CR Complete Title ...
they are clearly erroneous, but review de novo whether those facts warrant suppression. See id. ¶15
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=108162 - 2014-03-25

[PDF] State v. Justice C. Granger
violated is a constitutional fact that we determine de novo. See State v. Ross, 203 Wis.2d 66, 79, 552
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13477 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] WI App 152
to the findings of fact de novo. Further, we are not constrained to the [trial] court’s reasoning in affirming
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=72012 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Charles Edward Hennings
decisions and was clearly not deficient. ¶27 On our de novo review, we agree with the postconviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19667 - 2017-09-21