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.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
was ineffective is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. ¶15 An ineffective assistance of counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1042989 - 2025-11-25
was ineffective is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. ¶15 An ineffective assistance of counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1042989 - 2025-11-25
[PDF]
WI APP 60
, which is a matter of law we review de novo. Century Fence Co. v. American Sewer Servs., Inc., 2021 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=851345 - 2024-11-12
, which is a matter of law we review de novo. Century Fence Co. v. American Sewer Servs., Inc., 2021 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=851345 - 2024-11-12
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
[PDF]
State v. Lawrence H.
review de novo. See id. When we address a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11587 - 2017-09-19
review de novo. See id. When we address a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11587 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
State v. Joseph R. King
assistance of counsel is a question of law we review de novo. State v. Harvey, 139 Wis. 2d 353, 376, 407
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25477 - 2017-09-21
assistance of counsel is a question of law we review de novo. State v. Harvey, 139 Wis. 2d 353, 376, 407
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25477 - 2017-09-21
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
Kimberly Schreiber v. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin
, however, are entitled to no deference, and are reviewed by this court under a de novo standard. Ball v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11886 - 2005-03-31
, however, are entitled to no deference, and are reviewed by this court under a de novo standard. Ball v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11886 - 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