Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 26821 - 26830 of 29828 for des.
Search results 26821 - 26830 of 29828 for des.
State v. Cory L. Horsfall
review de novo. State v. Tulley, 2001 WI App 236, ¶5, 248 Wis. 2d 505, 635 N.W.2d 807. B. Deficient
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4643 - 2005-03-31
review de novo. State v. Tulley, 2001 WI App 236, ¶5, 248 Wis. 2d 505, 635 N.W.2d 807. B. Deficient
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4643 - 2005-03-31
Tracie M. v. Andrew J.W.
] While Andrew couches his argument as one of law, which we should decide de novo, we see his challenge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11823 - 2005-03-31
] While Andrew couches his argument as one of law, which we should decide de novo, we see his challenge
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11823 - 2005-03-31
State v. Pamela L. Peters
. Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397, 406, 565
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16573 - 2005-03-31
. Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397, 406, 565
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16573 - 2005-03-31
Nathaniel Allen Lindell v. Jon E. Litscher
that we interpret the above-cited statutes. A question of law is thus presented, which we decide de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6887 - 2005-03-31
that we interpret the above-cited statutes. A question of law is thus presented, which we decide de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6887 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
findings of fact and uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Second, we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=789096 - 2024-04-16
findings of fact and uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Second, we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=789096 - 2024-04-16
[PDF]
Spriggie Hensley v. Jeffrey P. Endicott
of statutory construction. We review questions of statutory construction de novo. State ex rel. Cramer v
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16349 - 2017-09-21
of statutory construction. We review questions of statutory construction de novo. State ex rel. Cramer v
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16349 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that we review de novo. See id. ¶21 State v. Denny established “a bright line standard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=241187 - 2019-05-29
that we review de novo. See id. ¶21 State v. Denny established “a bright line standard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=241187 - 2019-05-29
[PDF]
WI APP 135
that there was no good faith finding, our de novo review of the record confirms the trial court’s conclusion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=37986 - 2014-09-15
that there was no good faith finding, our de novo review of the record confirms the trial court’s conclusion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=37986 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Heather R. Nugent v. Charles A. Slaght
. Standard of Review ¶11 This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo, applying the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2638 - 2017-09-19
. Standard of Review ¶11 This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo, applying the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2638 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Donald L. Long
, if deficient, the deficiency was prejudicial are questions of law, which we decide de novo. Pitch, 124 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7736 - 2017-09-19
, if deficient, the deficiency was prejudicial are questions of law, which we decide de novo. Pitch, 124 Wis.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7736 - 2017-09-19