Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 26931 - 26940 of 30177 for de.
Search results 26931 - 26940 of 30177 for de.
State v. Kenosha County Board of Adjustment
, our standard of review of the circuit court's ruling is de novo. See Nielsen v. Waukesha County Bd
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10761 - 2005-03-31
, our standard of review of the circuit court's ruling is de novo. See Nielsen v. Waukesha County Bd
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10761 - 2005-03-31
Frontsheet
review de novo. State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, ¶7, 281 Wis. 2d 484, 697 N.W.2d 769. ¶15 Our goal
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29552 - 2007-06-28
review de novo. State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, ¶7, 281 Wis. 2d 484, 697 N.W.2d 769. ¶15 Our goal
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29552 - 2007-06-28
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
breach of the plea agreement, a question of law that we review de novo, see Nietzold, 406 Wis. 2d 349
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=959098 - 2025-05-20
breach of the plea agreement, a question of law that we review de novo, see Nietzold, 406 Wis. 2d 349
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=959098 - 2025-05-20
[PDF]
State v. Zan Morgan
, which we review de novo based on the facts as found by the trial court. State v. Mosher, 221 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4281 - 2017-09-19
, which we review de novo based on the facts as found by the trial court. State v. Mosher, 221 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4281 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
recognition protocol conducted by Knutson and officer Bagley, a drug recognition expert from the De Pere
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=210358 - 2018-03-27
recognition protocol conducted by Knutson and officer Bagley, a drug recognition expert from the De Pere
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=210358 - 2018-03-27
[PDF]
Frontsheet
of fact are affirmed unless clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=109456 - 2017-09-21
of fact are affirmed unless clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=109456 - 2017-09-21
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
State v. Jeffrey Stout
of constitutional principles to the facts is a question of law that we decide de novo without deference to the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3803 - 2005-03-31
of constitutional principles to the facts is a question of law that we decide de novo without deference to the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3803 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is a question of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=387021 - 2021-07-13
to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is a question of law that we review de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=387021 - 2021-07-13
Frontsheet
of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. In re Disciplinary
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=105948 - 2013-12-18
of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. In re Disciplinary
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=105948 - 2013-12-18