Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 25271 - 25280 of 29740 for des.
Search results 25271 - 25280 of 29740 for des.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. “The interpretation and application of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo….” State v. Arends
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=749252 - 2024-01-09
. “The interpretation and application of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo….” State v. Arends
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=749252 - 2024-01-09
[PDF]
Frontsheet
. We review the referee's conclusions of law de novo. Id. We determine the appropriate level
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=211324 - 2018-04-18
. We review the referee's conclusions of law de novo. Id. We determine the appropriate level
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=211324 - 2018-04-18
[PDF]
Frontsheet
unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=203975 - 2017-11-28
unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=203975 - 2017-11-28
[PDF]
Claudia R. Cody v. Dane County
.” Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d 645, 652 (7th Cir. 1985). ¶11 We review summary judgment de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2321 - 2017-09-19
.” Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d 645, 652 (7th Cir. 1985). ¶11 We review summary judgment de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2321 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
judgment is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.” Racine Cnty. v. Oracular Milwaukee
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=592640 - 2022-11-22
judgment is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.” Racine Cnty. v. Oracular Milwaukee
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=592640 - 2022-11-22
[PDF]
NOTICE
and whether it was prejudicial to the defendant are reviewed de novo. Id. at 634. ¶17 We first consider
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=58887 - 2014-09-15
and whether it was prejudicial to the defendant are reviewed de novo. Id. at 634. ¶17 We first consider
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=58887 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
WI APP 204
., 152 Wis. 2d 97, 103, 447 N.W.2d 533 (1989). We review de novo, however, the court’s ultimate legal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29848 - 2014-09-15
., 152 Wis. 2d 97, 103, 447 N.W.2d 533 (1989). We review de novo, however, the court’s ultimate legal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29848 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
as evidence that his “de minimis” filling would not have a significant adverse wetland impact. The DNR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=134831 - 2017-09-21
as evidence that his “de minimis” filling would not have a significant adverse wetland impact. The DNR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=134831 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI APP 72
to be decided de novo. Id.; see also State v. Garcia, 195 Wis. 2d 68, 73, 535 N.W.2d 124 (Ct. App. 1995
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=866560 - 2025-02-04
to be decided de novo. Id.; see also State v. Garcia, 195 Wis. 2d 68, 73, 535 N.W.2d 124 (Ct. App. 1995
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=866560 - 2025-02-04
COURT OF APPEALS
those determinations de novo. See id. at 18. The State also has the burden of proving the defendant’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45960 - 2010-01-19
those determinations de novo. See id. at 18. The State also has the burden of proving the defendant’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=45960 - 2010-01-19