Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5321 - 5330 of 29936 for des.

[PDF] CA Blank Order
deficiency was prejudicial are both questions of law that we review de novo. State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=876429 - 2024-11-19

[PDF] Granville Rodgers v. City of Milwaukee
. No. 98-2668 6 ¶11 We review summary judgment rulings de novo, applying the same methodology
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14508 - 2017-09-21

Kimberly Kirwin Holum v. General Motors Corporation
a de novo standard of review. See Rhiel v. Wisconsin County Mut. Ins. Corp., 212 Wis.2d 46, 51, 568
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13124 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] Beth Callow v. Daniel Tornio
). When the facts are undisputed, the interpretation of a contract is a question of law that we review de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10163 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] WI APP 70
agreement. On our de novo review, we reverse. I. ¶2 After the publication of 2011 Wis. Act 32, the City
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=95527 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] Michael Schnake v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County
underlying a contempt finding is a question of law subject to de novo review. Id., 139 Wis. 2d at 552, 407
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18177 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Turhan V. Taylor
of law that we review de novo. State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis.2d 628, 634, 369 N.W.2d 711, 714 (1985
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8394 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
” to her.4 ¶12 We review a circuit court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, “applying the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1066327 - 2026-01-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
, such as the interpretation of an insurance policy, the standard of review is de novo. Talley v. Mustafa, 2018 WI 47, ¶13
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1088746 - 2026-03-10

COURT OF APPEALS
court, and instead review the issue de novo. See Cohn v. Town of Randall, 2001 WI App 176, ¶5, 247 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=63471 - 2012-02-19