Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 28871 - 28880 of 30066 for de.
Search results 28871 - 28880 of 30066 for de.
[PDF]
WI 48
This case requires statutory interpretation, and the standard of review for statutory interpretation is de
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36806 - 2014-09-15
This case requires statutory interpretation, and the standard of review for statutory interpretation is de
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36806 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. Whether the motion alleges sufficient material facts is a question of law, which this court reviews de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=265630 - 2020-06-25
. Whether the motion alleges sufficient material facts is a question of law, which this court reviews de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=265630 - 2020-06-25
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
No. 2017AP1216 6 interpretations of law and review de novo questions of statutory interpretation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=233699 - 2019-01-31
No. 2017AP1216 6 interpretations of law and review de novo questions of statutory interpretation
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=233699 - 2019-01-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
we review de novo. Id. ¶17 A defendant seeking relief for ineffective assistance of counsel must
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=515867 - 2022-05-03
we review de novo. Id. ¶17 A defendant seeking relief for ineffective assistance of counsel must
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=515867 - 2022-05-03
[PDF]
State v. Edward J. E.
to undisputed facts de novo. See State v. Peters, 166 Wis. 2d 168, 175, 479 Nos. 02-1613-CR 02-1614-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5369 - 2017-09-19
to undisputed facts de novo. See State v. Peters, 166 Wis. 2d 168, 175, 479 Nos. 02-1613-CR 02-1614-CR
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5369 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
WI APP 112
. No. 2013AP1750 7 ¶17 A motion for JNOV presents a question of law, and therefore we apply a de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=123530 - 2017-09-21
. No. 2013AP1750 7 ¶17 A motion for JNOV presents a question of law, and therefore we apply a de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=123530 - 2017-09-21
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael D. Mandelman
erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25168 - 2006-05-16
erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25168 - 2006-05-16
[PDF]
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey A. Reitz
to the referee's conclusions of law which we review de novo. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17716 - 2017-09-21
to the referee's conclusions of law which we review de novo. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17716 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Frontsheet
which we review de novo. See Jones v. Est. of Jones, 2002 WI 61, ¶9, 253 Wis. 2d 158, 646 N.W.2d
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=380248 - 2021-08-02
which we review de novo. See Jones v. Est. of Jones, 2002 WI 61, ¶9, 253 Wis. 2d 158, 646 N.W.2d
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=380248 - 2021-08-02
State v. Donald J. Lallaman
de novo. See State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397, 405-06, 565 N.W.2d 506 (1997). We interpret
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2310 - 2005-03-31
de novo. See State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397, 405-06, 565 N.W.2d 506 (1997). We interpret
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2310 - 2005-03-31