Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 26591 - 26600 of 29828 for des.
Search results 26591 - 26600 of 29828 for des.
[PDF]
WI APP 62
of law that we review de novo. Id. Discussion ¶9 The seizure in this case was justified, if at all
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32248 - 2014-09-15
of law that we review de novo. Id. Discussion ¶9 The seizure in this case was justified, if at all
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=32248 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Mary K. Sulzer v. Mary Susan Diedrich
of the divorce judgment, we apply a de novo standard. Id. As to the ultimate decision whether to grant
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16581 - 2017-09-21
of the divorce judgment, we apply a de novo standard. Id. As to the ultimate decision whether to grant
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16581 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Scott E. Pocius v. Kenosha County
. at 496- 97, 536 N.W.2d at 182. Although summary judgment presents a question of law to be reviewed de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14747 - 2017-09-21
. at 496- 97, 536 N.W.2d at 182. Although summary judgment presents a question of law to be reviewed de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14747 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
performance was deficient or prejudicial are each questions of law that we review de novo. State v. Pitsch
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=352008 - 2021-04-01
performance was deficient or prejudicial are each questions of law that we review de novo. State v. Pitsch
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=352008 - 2021-04-01
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. STAT. § 108.04(5) is a legal conclusion [that] we review de novo but give appropriate deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=131809 - 2017-09-21
. STAT. § 108.04(5) is a legal conclusion [that] we review de novo but give appropriate deference
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=131809 - 2017-09-21
Frontsheet
. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. Rechsteiner v. Hazelden, 2008 WI 97
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=51661 - 2010-07-01
. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. Rechsteiner v. Hazelden, 2008 WI 97
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=51661 - 2010-07-01
State v. Kevin D. Jennings
interpretation presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo. State v. Busch, 217 Wis. 2d 429, 441
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16481 - 2005-03-31
interpretation presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo. State v. Busch, 217 Wis. 2d 429, 441
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16481 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Peter Kiss v. General Motors Corporation
.3 Kiss now brings this appeal. ¶9 We review summary judgment decisions de novo, applying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2347 - 2017-09-19
.3 Kiss now brings this appeal. ¶9 We review summary judgment decisions de novo, applying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2347 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
Amy L. Walker v. University of Wisconsin Hospitals
, 533 N.W.2d 759, 763 (1995). As applied to this case, we consider de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8433 - 2017-09-19
, 533 N.W.2d 759, 763 (1995). As applied to this case, we consider de novo whether
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8433 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
deficient and prejudicial presents a question of law we review de novo. Id. “Counsel’s conduct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118785 - 2014-09-15
deficient and prejudicial presents a question of law we review de novo. Id. “Counsel’s conduct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118785 - 2014-09-15