Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 26611 - 26620 of 29823 for des.
Search results 26611 - 26620 of 29823 for des.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
judgment de novo, while benefitting from the circuit court’s analysis. State v. Bobby G., 2007 WI 77
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=449597 - 2021-11-04
judgment de novo, while benefitting from the circuit court’s analysis. State v. Bobby G., 2007 WI 77
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=449597 - 2021-11-04
[PDF]
WI 66
factual findings affirmed unless clearly erroneous; legal conclusions reviewed on de novo basis). We
/sc/dispord/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33127 - 2014-09-15
factual findings affirmed unless clearly erroneous; legal conclusions reviewed on de novo basis). We
/sc/dispord/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33127 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
State v. Melvin R. Tucker
charges are multiplicitous is an issue subject to our de novo review. State v. Hirsch, 140 Wis.2d 468
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7864 - 2017-09-19
charges are multiplicitous is an issue subject to our de novo review. State v. Hirsch, 140 Wis.2d 468
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7864 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Leonard J. LaRoche, Jr.
). However, despite our de novo standard of review, we value a trial court’s analysis of the issue. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2295 - 2017-09-19
). However, despite our de novo standard of review, we value a trial court’s analysis of the issue. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2295 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
de novo. Farrell by Lehner v. John Deere Co., 151 Wis. 2d 45, 60, 443 N.W.2d 50 (Ct. App. 1989
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=211327 - 2018-04-17
de novo. Farrell by Lehner v. John Deere Co., 151 Wis. 2d 45, 60, 443 N.W.2d 50 (Ct. App. 1989
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=211327 - 2018-04-17
[PDF]
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael G. Artery
they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21274 - 2017-09-21
they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21274 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI App 50
they asserted. Zelman appeals. Discussion ¶5 We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, applying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=215282 - 2018-09-07
they asserted. Zelman appeals. Discussion ¶5 We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, applying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=215282 - 2018-09-07
Mary K. Sulzer v. Mary Susan Diedrich
. As to the legal issues, such as the construction of the divorce judgment, we apply a de novo standard. Id
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16581 - 2005-03-31
. As to the legal issues, such as the construction of the divorce judgment, we apply a de novo standard. Id
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16581 - 2005-03-31
Frontsheet
findings of fact are affirmed unless clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140122 - 2015-04-16
findings of fact are affirmed unless clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140122 - 2015-04-16
2008 WI App 35
. Analysis. ¶8 We review a motion for summary judgment de novo, using the same methodology
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31648 - 2008-02-19
. Analysis. ¶8 We review a motion for summary judgment de novo, using the same methodology
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=31648 - 2008-02-19