Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 28721 - 28730 of 30175 for de.
Search results 28721 - 28730 of 30175 for de.
[PDF]
State v. James M. Moran
are questions of law that we review de novo. See State v. Harris, 2004 WI 64, ¶25, 272 Wis. 2d 80, 680 N.W
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18971 - 2017-09-21
are questions of law that we review de novo. See State v. Harris, 2004 WI 64, ¶25, 272 Wis. 2d 80, 680 N.W
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18971 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
Wis. 2d 111, 120, 588 N.W.2d 346 (Ct. App. 1998) (de novo review applies to the interpretation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=778695 - 2024-03-21
Wis. 2d 111, 120, 588 N.W.2d 346 (Ct. App. 1998) (de novo review applies to the interpretation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=778695 - 2024-03-21
COURT OF APPEALS
. Const. amend. VI; Wis. Const. art. I, § 7. We review de novo whether a trial court’s decision to admit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60643 - 2011-03-02
. Const. amend. VI; Wis. Const. art. I, § 7. We review de novo whether a trial court’s decision to admit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60643 - 2011-03-02
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of statutes present issues of law that we review de novo. See Warehouse II, LLC v. DOT, 2006 WI 62, ¶4, 291
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=996972 - 2025-08-14
of statutes present issues of law that we review de novo. See Warehouse II, LLC v. DOT, 2006 WI 62, ¶4, 291
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=996972 - 2025-08-14
Theresa Huml v. Robert W. Vlazny
. Contract interpretation and whether a contract is ambiguous are both questions of law we review de novo
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25815 - 2006-07-06
. Contract interpretation and whether a contract is ambiguous are both questions of law we review de novo
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25815 - 2006-07-06
[PDF]
WI 4
, 717 N.W.2d 184. Statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de novo review, and we
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59611 - 2014-09-15
, 717 N.W.2d 184. Statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de novo review, and we
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=59611 - 2014-09-15
2010 WI APP 116
are distinct concepts.” Id. ¶8 How do these concepts work here? While we review summary judgments de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52715 - 2010-08-24
are distinct concepts.” Id. ¶8 How do these concepts work here? While we review summary judgments de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52715 - 2010-08-24
Frontsheet
n.4, 292 Wis. 2d 549, 717 N.W.2d 184. Statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59611 - 2011-02-01
n.4, 292 Wis. 2d 549, 717 N.W.2d 184. Statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59611 - 2011-02-01
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark A. Phillips
137 (1997). We review the referee's conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis. See In re
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25140 - 2006-05-11
137 (1997). We review the referee's conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis. See In re
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25140 - 2006-05-11
State v. Lance R. Ward
). Our review of the magistrate’s probable cause determination is not de novo; rather, we pay “great
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12738 - 2005-03-31
). Our review of the magistrate’s probable cause determination is not de novo; rather, we pay “great
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12738 - 2005-03-31