Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 6261 - 6270 of 30134 for consulta de causas.
Search results 6261 - 6270 of 30134 for consulta de causas.
Philip J. Leach v. James Luterbach Construction Company, Inc.
is de novo, we need not rely upon this analysis in order to affirm the circuit court.
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14996 - 2005-03-31
is de novo, we need not rely upon this analysis in order to affirm the circuit court.
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14996 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
State v. Dontae L. Doyle
review de novo. [State v.] Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d [303,] 309- 10[, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996)]. If the motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21020 - 2017-09-21
review de novo. [State v.] Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d [303,] 309- 10[, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996)]. If the motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=21020 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
WI APP 48
for Waukesha County: LINDA M. VAN DE WATER, Judge. Affirmed. Before Hoover, P.J., Peterson and Brunner
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=48275 - 2014-09-15
for Waukesha County: LINDA M. VAN DE WATER, Judge. Affirmed. Before Hoover, P.J., Peterson and Brunner
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=48275 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
assertion. Because our review of a summary judgment decision is de novo, it would make no difference
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107717 - 2017-09-21
assertion. Because our review of a summary judgment decision is de novo, it would make no difference
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=107717 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Landris T. Jines
that we review de novo. State v. Brunette, 220 Wis. 2d 431, 446, 583 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1998
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18671 - 2017-09-21
that we review de novo. State v. Brunette, 220 Wis. 2d 431, 446, 583 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1998
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18671 - 2017-09-21
Jerry Torbeck v. CE Land Development, LLC
it. DISCUSSION ¶5 This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo, applying the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21707 - 2006-03-08
it. DISCUSSION ¶5 This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo, applying the same
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=21707 - 2006-03-08
COURT OF APPEALS
clearly erroneous; however, we review de novo the application of constitutional principles
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92582 - 2013-02-12
clearly erroneous; however, we review de novo the application of constitutional principles
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92582 - 2013-02-12
[PDF]
State v. Michael F. Hobart
this court decides de NO. 96-3353-CR 3 novo. See State v. Manthey, 169 Wis.2d 673, 685, 487 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11736 - 2017-09-20
this court decides de NO. 96-3353-CR 3 novo. See State v. Manthey, 169 Wis.2d 673, 685, 487 N.W
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11736 - 2017-09-20
[PDF]
FICE OF THE CLERK
For the following reasons, we affirm. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same methodology
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1084937 - 2026-03-04
For the following reasons, we affirm. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same methodology
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1084937 - 2026-03-04
State v. Willie E. Willis
erroneous. Id. at 634, 369 N.W.2d at 714-15. See also, § 805.17(2), Stats. We consider legal issues de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10279 - 2005-03-31
erroneous. Id. at 634, 369 N.W.2d at 714-15. See also, § 805.17(2), Stats. We consider legal issues de
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10279 - 2005-03-31