Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3071 - 3080 of 29721 for des.
Search results 3071 - 3080 of 29721 for des.
COURT OF APPEALS
will not resolve the litigation and will instead complicate it. This is so, it argues, because under Frow v. De La
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30574 - 2007-10-10
will not resolve the litigation and will instead complicate it. This is so, it argues, because under Frow v. De La
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30574 - 2007-10-10
W.T. Corporation v. The Town of Waukesha
of a conditional use permit for a commercial PUD in a residential district was a “de facto rezoning
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7815 - 2005-03-31
of a conditional use permit for a commercial PUD in a residential district was a “de facto rezoning
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7815 - 2005-03-31
City of Waukesha v. Town Board of the Town of
of a conditional use permit for a commercial PUD in a residential district was a “de facto rezoning
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7814 - 2005-03-31
of a conditional use permit for a commercial PUD in a residential district was a “de facto rezoning
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7814 - 2005-03-31
Perry Margoles v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission
. Margoles argues that LIRC’s decision should be either accorded due weight deference, or reviewed de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12043 - 2005-03-31
. Margoles argues that LIRC’s decision should be either accorded due weight deference, or reviewed de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12043 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
WI APP 25
the decision of the Board, not that of the circuit court, and we do so de novo. State ex rel. Sprewell v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45402 - 2014-09-15
the decision of the Board, not that of the circuit court, and we do so de novo. State ex rel. Sprewell v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=45402 - 2014-09-15
Jeffrey Allen v. Waukesha County Board of Adjustment
decision de novo. See Miswald v. Waukesha County Bd. of Adjustment, 202 Wis.2d 401, 408, 550 N.W.2d 434
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11666 - 2005-03-31
decision de novo. See Miswald v. Waukesha County Bd. of Adjustment, 202 Wis.2d 401, 408, 550 N.W.2d 434
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11666 - 2005-03-31
Mark Anderson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
on the brief of Sandra L. Hupfer and Stellpflug, Janssen, Hammer, Kirschling & Bartels, S.C. of De Pere
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5144 - 2005-03-31
on the brief of Sandra L. Hupfer and Stellpflug, Janssen, Hammer, Kirschling & Bartels, S.C. of De Pere
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5144 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Kelley D. Avery
to due process is a question of law we review de novo. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis.2d 627, 639, 492
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13101 - 2017-09-21
to due process is a question of law we review de novo. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis.2d 627, 639, 492
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13101 - 2017-09-21
State v. Fontaine Baker
, which we review de novo. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d at 634. The defendant has the burden of persuasion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4253 - 2005-03-31
, which we review de novo. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d at 634. The defendant has the burden of persuasion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4253 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
review de novo. Id. 3 Jon Litscher was Department
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=502059 - 2022-03-31
review de novo. Id. 3 Jon Litscher was Department
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=502059 - 2022-03-31