Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5851 - 5860 of 29996 for consulta de causas.
Search results 5851 - 5860 of 29996 for consulta de causas.
N.E.M. v. Eugene Strigel
that this court reviews de novo. Wagner Mobile, Inc. v. City of Madison, 190 Wis. 2d 585, 527 N.W.2d 301 (1995
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16995 - 2005-03-31
that this court reviews de novo. Wagner Mobile, Inc. v. City of Madison, 190 Wis. 2d 585, 527 N.W.2d 301 (1995
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16995 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
litigated is one of law, which we review de novo, while the issue of fundamental fairness involves
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=229066 - 2018-12-05
litigated is one of law, which we review de novo, while the issue of fundamental fairness involves
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=229066 - 2018-12-05
[PDF]
State v. Johnnie Phiffer
to decide this issue, and we review the postconviction court’s decision de novo. See Bahr v. State Inv
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14410 - 2014-09-15
to decide this issue, and we review the postconviction court’s decision de novo. See Bahr v. State Inv
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14410 - 2014-09-15
Waukesha County v. Darlene R.
was submitted by Janice M. De Witt of De Witt Law Offices of West Bend as advocate counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9234 - 2005-03-31
was submitted by Janice M. De Witt of De Witt Law Offices of West Bend as advocate counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9234 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
WI App 81
de novo. See Cohn v. Town of Randall, 2001 WI App 176, ¶5, 247 Wis. 2d 118, 633 N.W.2d 674
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=63471 - 2014-09-15
de novo. See Cohn v. Town of Randall, 2001 WI App 176, ¶5, 247 Wis. 2d 118, 633 N.W.2d 674
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=63471 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
is a question we review de novo. Id. ¶11 Moore first contends that the initial stop was unreasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30846 - 2007-11-13
is a question we review de novo. Id. ¶11 Moore first contends that the initial stop was unreasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=30846 - 2007-11-13
[PDF]
State v. George W. Perkins
jeopardy is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Anderson, 219 Wis. at 747. ¶10 Claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16057 - 2017-09-21
jeopardy is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Anderson, 219 Wis. at 747. ¶10 Claims
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16057 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Diversified Investments Corporation v. Regent Insurance Company
). We review summary judgments de novo, employing the same methodology as the trial court. Green
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14424 - 2017-09-21
). We review summary judgments de novo, employing the same methodology as the trial court. Green
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14424 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
provisions applicable to restitution awards, we review the court’s interpretation de novo. See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1054224 - 2025-12-23
provisions applicable to restitution awards, we review the court’s interpretation de novo. See State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1054224 - 2025-12-23
[PDF]
Jami L. Van Boxtel v. Brent F. Van Boxtel
: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Affirmed. Before Cane, C.J., Hoover, P.J., and Peterson, J. ¶1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15104 - 2017-09-21
: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Affirmed. Before Cane, C.J., Hoover, P.J., and Peterson, J. ¶1
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15104 - 2017-09-21