Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 26781 - 26790 of 29958 for de.

State v. Charles E. Hennings
reversal is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Broomfield, 223 Wis. 2d 465, 480, 589 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3408 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Scott Brunson v. Robert L. Ward
reviews de novo. Katze v. Randolph & Scott Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 116 Wis. 2d 206, 212, 341 N.W.2d 689
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17444 - 2017-09-21

State v. Anthony Glenn
-included offense instruction presents a question of law which we review de novo. Wilson, 149 Wis. 2d
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16882 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
offense. See id., ¶7. Our review as to whether this test is satisfied is de novo. See id. ¶22
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=138606 - 2015-03-30

[PDF] FH Healthcare Development, Inc. v. City of Wauwatosa
of law” that we review de novo. St. Elizabeth Hosp., Inc. v. City of Appleton, 141 Wis. 2d 787, 790
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7029 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
procedural vehicle, our standard of review is de novo because we must interpret and apply the terms
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=944855 - 2025-04-22

2006 WI APP 184
of an insurance contract a matter of law for de novo review). When we interpret the terms of an insurance policy
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26256 - 2006-09-26

State v. Louis J. Thornton
constitutional right to counsel is a question of constitutional fact which we review de novo. See State ex rel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3732 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
review the circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Snyder v. Badgerland Mobile
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=623133 - 2023-02-16

Hal Hempel v. City of Baraboo
presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See Mayfair Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Baldarotta
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6194 - 2005-03-31