Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 28011 - 28020 of 30059 for de.

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
sufficient facts to get a hearing is de novo. State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310, 548 N.W.2d 50, 53
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=125544 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Certification
question in the affirmative, it may also want to consider the additional question of whether this de
/ca/cert/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=177817 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] WI APP 88
.2d 781, 788. We review legal issues de novo. Ibid. On the other hand, a circuit court’s findings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=116715 - 2017-09-21

COURT OF APPEALS
of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, ¶¶7, 11, 281 Wis. 2d 484, 697 N.W.2d 769
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=32345 - 2008-04-07

[PDF] Frontsheet
of law on a de novo basis. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=166334 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] WI APP 63
, this presents a question of law that we review de novo. See Walter v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 121 Wis. 2d 221
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=47759 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund v. Wisconsin Health Care Liability Insurance Plan
this court reviews de novo, benefitting from the analyses of the No. 95-0865 5 circuit court
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17001 - 2017-09-21

State v. Jeffrey A. Huck
to the defendant are questions of law reviewed by this court de novo. Id.; State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d 628, 634
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17519 - 2005-03-31

State v. Jeffrey A. Huck
to the defendant are questions of law reviewed by this court de novo. Id.; State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d 628, 634
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17520 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] WI App 23
on the pleadings is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35244 - 2014-09-15