Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 27721 - 27730 of 30059 for de.
Search results 27721 - 27730 of 30059 for de.
[PDF]
State v. Antwon C. Mathews
was "seized" for Fourth Amendment purposes is reviewed de novo. Id. ¶18 Warrentless searches are per se
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16480 - 2017-09-21
was "seized" for Fourth Amendment purposes is reviewed de novo. Id. ¶18 Warrentless searches are per se
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16480 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
counsel’s performance was constitutionally ineffective is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=920348 - 2025-02-26
counsel’s performance was constitutionally ineffective is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=920348 - 2025-02-26
State v. Walter Junior Hamilton
that we review de novo. Construction of a statute is a question of law that this court decides
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16494 - 2005-03-31
that we review de novo. Construction of a statute is a question of law that this court decides
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16494 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Jeannine C. Baertsch v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
of law which this court reviews de novo. First Nat’l Leasing Corp. v. City of Madison, 81 Wis.2d 205
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12188 - 2017-09-21
of law which this court reviews de novo. First Nat’l Leasing Corp. v. City of Madison, 81 Wis.2d 205
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12188 - 2017-09-21
David Arnold v. Cincinnati Insurance Company
. § 802.08(2). We apply the same methodology as the trial court and review de novo the grant or denial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6888 - 2005-03-31
. § 802.08(2). We apply the same methodology as the trial court and review de novo the grant or denial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6888 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Robert Jamont Wright
which we review de novo. Id. Van Rybroek’s Expert Testimony ¶31 Wright first argues that trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6103 - 2017-09-19
which we review de novo. Id. Van Rybroek’s Expert Testimony ¶31 Wright first argues that trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6103 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
presents a question of law that we review de novo. Id. I. Schuett’s warrantless entry into Potocnik’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=257980 - 2020-04-14
presents a question of law that we review de novo. Id. I. Schuett’s warrantless entry into Potocnik’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=257980 - 2020-04-14
University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation, Inc. v. City of Madison
judgment de novo, owing no deference to the trial court’s decision. Waters v. United States Fid. & Guar
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5309 - 2005-03-31
judgment de novo, owing no deference to the trial court’s decision. Waters v. United States Fid. & Guar
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5309 - 2005-03-31
2010 WI APP 173
to LIRC’s interpretations of a particular statute: great weight, due weight, or no weight (de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=57147 - 2010-12-13
to LIRC’s interpretations of a particular statute: great weight, due weight, or no weight (de novo review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=57147 - 2010-12-13
COURT OF APPEALS
the motion raised sufficient facts to get a hearing is de novo. State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310, 548
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=125544 - 2014-11-03
the motion raised sufficient facts to get a hearing is de novo. State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310, 548
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=125544 - 2014-11-03