Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 24721 - 24730 of 29985 for de.
Search results 24721 - 24730 of 29985 for de.
State v. Jerome Sellars
, which we review de novo. Id. Because the defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12792 - 2005-03-31
, which we review de novo. Id. Because the defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12792 - 2005-03-31
Lesley Thomas v. Michael J. Bickler
subject to our de novo review. Wisconsin Cent. Ltd. v. DOR, 2000 WI App 14, ¶9, 232 Wis. 2d 323, 606 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4229 - 2005-03-31
subject to our de novo review. Wisconsin Cent. Ltd. v. DOR, 2000 WI App 14, ¶9, 232 Wis. 2d 323, 606 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4229 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
WI App 29
uphold the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but review de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=108162 - 2017-09-21
uphold the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but review de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=108162 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of law that we review de novo. State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d 121, 128, 449 N.W.2d 845 (1990). A court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191253 - 2017-09-21
of law that we review de novo. State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d 121, 128, 449 N.W.2d 845 (1990). A court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=191253 - 2017-09-21
Jennifer Switzer v. Jonathan C. Switzer
interpretation are questions of law subject to our de novo review. Hayen v. Hayen, 2000 WI App 29, ¶6, 232 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20739 - 2006-01-24
interpretation are questions of law subject to our de novo review. Hayen v. Hayen, 2000 WI App 29, ¶6, 232 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20739 - 2006-01-24
State v. Larry D. Benoit
the objection. The error, if any, was de minimis and therefore harmless. State v. Dyess, 124 Wis.2d 525, 540
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7853 - 2005-03-31
the objection. The error, if any, was de minimis and therefore harmless. State v. Dyess, 124 Wis.2d 525, 540
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7853 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of law de novo. Id. ¶34 We conclude that the post-conviction court correctly determined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=213239 - 2018-07-12
of law de novo. Id. ¶34 We conclude that the post-conviction court correctly determined
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=213239 - 2018-07-12
[PDF]
State v. Jeremy D. Russ
the burden of proof presents a question of law for our de novo review. Long v. Ardestani, 2001 WI App 46
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20692 - 2017-09-21
the burden of proof presents a question of law for our de novo review. Long v. Ardestani, 2001 WI App 46
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=20692 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Leonard T. Collins
and 973.12. Statutory interpretation is an issue of law that we review de novo. State v. Campbell, 2002
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4299 - 2017-09-19
and 973.12. Statutory interpretation is an issue of law that we review de novo. State v. Campbell, 2002
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4299 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Amy Mathias v. St. Catherine's Hospital, Inc.
judgment de novo, applying the same methodology as the trial court. See Armstrong v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10933 - 2017-09-20
judgment de novo, applying the same methodology as the trial court. See Armstrong v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10933 - 2017-09-20