Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5041 - 5050 of 6659 for mix.

[PDF] John L. Senty v. James A. Senty
breached the fiduciary duty is a mixed question of fact and law. Jorgensen II, 246 Wis. 2d 614, ¶8
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=24628 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
was ineffective presents a mixed question of fact and law. State v. Maday, 2017 WI 28, ¶25, 374 Wis. 2d 164
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=872113 - 2024-11-05

[PDF] State v. Stephen R. Hart
). These are mixed questions of fact and law. Id. at 698. We will not reverse a trial court's findings of fact
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8129 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] State v. Emanuel D. Miller
. The holdings of other courts are mixed. In Belgard v. Hawaii, 883 F. Supp. 510, 513 (D. Haw. 1995), the court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7759 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS
. § 767.255(2)(a) presents a mixed question of fact and law. Derr, 280 Wis. 2d 681, ¶45. We will review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29161 - 2007-08-14

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
United Concrete & Constr., Inc. v. Red-D-Mix Concrete, Inc., 2013 WI 72, ¶12, 349 Wis. 2d 587, 836 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=380760 - 2021-06-24

[PDF] WI APP 33
of counsel due to counsel’s conflict of interest presents a mixed question of fact and law. State v. Love
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=93153 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Martin J. Zielinski
, our standard of review is mixed. State v. Martwick, 2000 WI 5, ¶16, 231 Wis. 2d 801, 604 N.W.2d 552
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=19635 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
a defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact. The factual
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=246633 - 2019-09-12

State v. Bruce W. Ackerman
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance is a mixed question of law and fact. See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2650 - 2005-03-31