Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 4701 - 4710 of 6641 for mix.

COURT OF APPEALS
, and conclude that our review of the circuit court’s damages award involves a mixed question of fact and law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29680 - 2007-07-11

[PDF] 1325 North Van Buren, LLC v. T-3 Group, Ltd.
, as it contends that this is a “mixed” contract, which necessitates the application of the “predominant purpose
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18155 - 2017-09-21

[PDF]
governed by United Concrete & Construction Inc. v. Red-D-Mix Concrete, Inc., 2013 WI 72, 349 Wis. 2d 587
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=340006 - 2021-02-25

Leanne M. Abbas v. Bradley J. Palmersheim
Whether there is a substantial change in circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. See Harris v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6001 - 2005-03-31

State v. Patricia A. Weed
of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of fact and law. State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16514 - 2005-03-31

Heritage Mutual Insurance Company v. William E. Larsen
. He admitted having four to five mixed drinks there, over a period of approximately one hour and forty
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17465 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Charles J. Hajicek
. ¶15 A question of constitutional fact presents a mixed question of fact and law reviewed with a two
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=17462 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Leanne M. Abbas v. Bradley J. Palmersheim
in circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. See Harris v. Harris, 141 Wis. 2d 569, 574, 415 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6001 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS
a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Trawitzki, 2001 WI 77, ¶19, 244 Wis. 2d 523, 628 N.W.2d 801
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=48654 - 2010-04-05

State v. Timothy Scott Bailey Smith, Sr.
. at 511. However, the Supreme Court held that the determination of "materiality" was a mixed question
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18884 - 2005-07-05