Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 3991 - 4000 of 30032 for consulta de causas.
Search results 3991 - 4000 of 30032 for consulta de causas.
State v. Kelvin Griffin
reviewing “the ultimate determination of whether counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial” de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8573 - 2005-03-31
reviewing “the ultimate determination of whether counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial” de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8573 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Curtis W.Ross
are questions of law, which we review de novo. See Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d at 634. ¶8 If a postconviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16126 - 2017-09-21
are questions of law, which we review de novo. See Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d at 634. ¶8 If a postconviction
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16126 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that Boone entered the plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily is a question of law we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=994951 - 2025-08-13
that Boone entered the plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily is a question of law we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=994951 - 2025-08-13
COURT OF APPEALS
Development Authority, Domonic R. D'Acquisto, Mark A. Slocomb, David L. De Angelis and John R. Johnson
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121803 - 2014-09-16
Development Authority, Domonic R. D'Acquisto, Mark A. Slocomb, David L. De Angelis and John R. Johnson
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=121803 - 2014-09-16
COURT OF APPEALS
posed here call for statutory interpretation, which are reviewed de novo. See Rogers v. Rogers, 2007 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131221 - 2014-12-03
posed here call for statutory interpretation, which are reviewed de novo. See Rogers v. Rogers, 2007 WI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131221 - 2014-12-03
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
of law that we review de novo.” Id. ¶10 The postconviction motion must specifically allege within its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=906575 - 2025-01-29
of law that we review de novo.” Id. ¶10 The postconviction motion must specifically allege within its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=906575 - 2025-01-29
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. Hoxha argues that we should analyze the circuit court’s order No. 2014AP1375 6 de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=142339 - 2017-09-21
. Hoxha argues that we should analyze the circuit court’s order No. 2014AP1375 6 de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=142339 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Mark Sevelin
an ownership interest. Statutory interpretation is a question of law we review de novo. State ex rel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10531 - 2017-09-20
an ownership interest. Statutory interpretation is a question of law we review de novo. State ex rel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10531 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
State v. Dawn M. Filtz
. Our review of a constitutional fact on the grounds of established historical fact, however, is de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7288 - 2017-09-20
. Our review of a constitutional fact on the grounds of established historical fact, however, is de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7288 - 2017-09-20
Sauk County v. Robert M. Engelhardt
of drivers for intoxication. Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14476 - 2005-03-31
of drivers for intoxication. Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo. See
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14476 - 2005-03-31