Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 6081 - 6090 of 29996 for consulta de causas.

[PDF] Jerry M. v. Dennis L. M.
that the standard of review governing this issue is de novo. While a court's decision to admit or exclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=8491 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] State v. Leon J. Lace
364 (1992), and we determine de novo whether the facts satisfy the constitutional standards
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3940 - 2017-09-20

State v. Jerry Harden
conduct amounted to ineffective assistance is a question of law which we review de novo. Id. ¶14 We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5604 - 2005-03-31

State v. Jaruthh M. Gathings
for a Machner hearing de novo. State v. Tatum, 191 Wis.2d 547, 551, 530 N.W.2d 407, 408 (Ct. App. 1995). We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9313 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
review a circuit court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Umansky v. ABC Ins. Co., 2009 WI 82, ¶8, 319
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=94601 - 2013-03-27

[PDF] Paige K.B. v. Louis J. Molepske
, 82-84, 257 N.W.2d 869, 873-74 (1977); de Montigny v. de Montigny, 70 Wis.2d 131, 142, 233 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11411 - 2017-09-19

COURT OF APPEALS
is a question of law which we review de novo. See State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 676, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29083 - 2007-05-16

2007 WI APP 37
that issue de novo. Id. The interpretation and application of statutes and case law to the facts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=27940 - 2007-03-27

2008 WI APP 190
a declaratory judgment or a summary judgment,[3] our standard of review is de novo. See Green Spring Farms v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=34473 - 2015-03-17

[PDF] Kimberly Kirwin Holum v. General Motors Corporation
presents a matter of statutory interpretation which creates a de novo standard of review. See Rhiel v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13124 - 2017-09-21