Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 6511 - 6520 of 29996 for consulta de causas.
Search results 6511 - 6520 of 29996 for consulta de causas.
[PDF]
WI 28
, this court's review is de novo, and we apply the summary judgment No. 2007AP191 7 methodology
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36032 - 2014-09-15
, this court's review is de novo, and we apply the summary judgment No. 2007AP191 7 methodology
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36032 - 2014-09-15
Elmer W. Glaeske v. Elwyn M. Shaw
judgment, we review de novo the trial court’s action on the motion. See Waters v. United States Fid
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4595 - 2005-03-31
judgment, we review de novo the trial court’s action on the motion. See Waters v. United States Fid
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4595 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
WI APP 98
interpretation of the applicable statutes, our review of the contracts in this case is de novo. See Wisconsin
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=64634 - 2014-09-15
interpretation of the applicable statutes, our review of the contracts in this case is de novo. See Wisconsin
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=64634 - 2014-09-15
2009 WI App 132
. II. Analysis. A. Standards of Review. ¶7 We review de novo a trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=39283 - 2009-09-28
. II. Analysis. A. Standards of Review. ¶7 We review de novo a trial court’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=39283 - 2009-09-28
[PDF]
WI APP 17
that this court reviews de novo. Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2019 WI 66, ¶10, 387 Wis. 2d 333, 929 N.W.2d 140
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=630177 - 2023-05-23
that this court reviews de novo. Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2019 WI 66, ¶10, 387 Wis. 2d 333, 929 N.W.2d 140
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=630177 - 2023-05-23
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
. These are legal questions that we review de novo; while “we consider the [trial] court’s interpretation, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=913794 - 2025-02-12
. These are legal questions that we review de novo; while “we consider the [trial] court’s interpretation, we
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=913794 - 2025-02-12
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
questions of agency authority de novo. This case also requires us to interpret several statutory
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=459045 - 2021-12-02
questions of agency authority de novo. This case also requires us to interpret several statutory
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=459045 - 2021-12-02
Frontsheet
to the board of appeals for a de novo hearing because the board of appeals erroneously concluded as a matter
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29435 - 2007-06-18
to the board of appeals for a de novo hearing because the board of appeals erroneously concluded as a matter
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=29435 - 2007-06-18
[PDF]
F.R. v. T.B.
discretion because it applied an incorrect legal standard, we review that issue de novo. See Kerkvliet v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13779 - 2014-09-15
discretion because it applied an incorrect legal standard, we review that issue de novo. See Kerkvliet v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=13779 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
(implicitly applying de novo review to trial court’s implicit determination that issue was moot). We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26216 - 2006-09-26
(implicitly applying de novo review to trial court’s implicit determination that issue was moot). We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26216 - 2006-09-26