Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 25601 - 25610 of 29796 for des.
Search results 25601 - 25610 of 29796 for des.
Frontsheet
, 116 Wis. 2d 380, 382, 342 N.W.2d 406 (1984). We review the referee's conclusions of law de novo
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=133825 - 2015-01-27
, 116 Wis. 2d 380, 382, 342 N.W.2d 406 (1984). We review the referee's conclusions of law de novo
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=133825 - 2015-01-27
Karen Wipperfurth v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
and denial of motions for summary judgment de novo, applying the same methodology and standards as the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11968 - 2005-03-31
and denial of motions for summary judgment de novo, applying the same methodology and standards as the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11968 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
language. This presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See Wisconsin Cent. Farms v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58134 - 2010-12-22
language. This presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See Wisconsin Cent. Farms v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=58134 - 2010-12-22
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
on January 20, 2024. Mootness is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Marathon Cnty. v. D.K
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=763680 - 2024-02-15
on January 20, 2024. Mootness is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Marathon Cnty. v. D.K
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=763680 - 2024-02-15
Frontsheet
on a de novo basis. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104952 - 2013-11-28
on a de novo basis. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=104952 - 2013-11-28
[PDF]
NOTICE
coverage. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review ¶6 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=62145 - 2014-09-15
coverage. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review ¶6 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=62145 - 2014-09-15
State v. Paul Venema
and application of the statute to a set of facts, which presents a question of law that we review de novo. State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4386 - 2005-03-31
and application of the statute to a set of facts, which presents a question of law that we review de novo. State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4386 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
NOTICE
the criminal charge is a legal determination which we review de novo. State v. Brown, 2004 WI App 125, ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27397 - 2014-09-15
the criminal charge is a legal determination which we review de novo. State v. Brown, 2004 WI App 125, ¶7
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27397 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
99-CV-250 Grice Engineering, Inc. v. Kathleen M. Szyjewski
would affirm the circuit court’s trustworthiness ruling under either a deferential or de novo standard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3481 - 2017-09-20
would affirm the circuit court’s trustworthiness ruling under either a deferential or de novo standard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3481 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
State v. George R. Bollig
was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered is question of constitutional fact, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14338 - 2014-09-15
was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered is question of constitutional fact, which we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14338 - 2014-09-15