Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 60211 - 60220 of 68410 for law.

[PDF] NOTICE
(Ct. App. 1989). Whether a new factor exists presents a question of law which this court reviews
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33696 - 2014-09-15

Darnell Cauley v. Ponderosa Steak House
is a question of law. Awve v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., Inc., 181 Wis.2d 815, 822, 512 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Ct
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13932 - 2005-03-31

State v. Juan B. Garcia
was properly exercised is a question of law. See Seep v. State Pers. Comm’n, 140 Wis. 2d 32, 38, 409 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6313 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
to test. ¶7 Wingo also seeks to withdraw his Alford plea to the sexual assault because the law has
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33698 - 2008-08-11

State v. Kyle J. Nelson
did not have probable cause to administer the PBT. Wisconsin Stat. § 343.303 provides: If a law
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18180 - 2005-05-16

Lisa R. Steeno v. Joseph L. Steeno
is a contract between the parties and the construction of a written contract is a question of law which we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6750 - 2005-03-31

M&I Bank of Southern Wisconsin v. Robert F. Lins
of law.” Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2) (2001-02).[1] ¶6 Edith claims that she did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6751 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
questions of fact and law. See Sanchez, 201 Wis. 2d at 236. Findings of historical fact will not be upset
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33114 - 2008-06-23

State v. Jonathan C. Garcia
this court's confidence in the outcome. Id. This is a question of law subject to de novo appellate review
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10597 - 2005-03-31

Marathon County Department of Health and Family Services v. Vicki L.B.
to the statutory requirements for recommitment presents a question of law this court reviews de novo. K.N.K., 139
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7012 - 2005-03-31