Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 9151 - 9160 of 30126 for consulta de causas.

Kari K. Stuckel v. Mildred K. Olsen
as the trial court, making our review de novo. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315, 401 N.W.2d
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7138 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
with the restitution statute is reviewed de novo. Id. (citing State v. Canady, 2000 WI App 87, ¶6, 234 Wis. 2d 261
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=59061 - 2011-01-18

COURT OF APPEALS
of the circuit court for Grant County: Robert P. van de hey, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded with directions
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=51817 - 2010-07-07

COURT OF APPEALS
433. We review the sufficiency of a postconviction motion de novo, based on the four corners
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=73240 - 2011-11-02

COURT OF APPEALS
operating Nelson’s auto. Interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law subject to de novo
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52000 - 2010-07-12

Michael J. Scheidler v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
of law that we review de novo. Ginder v. General Cas. Ins. Co., 2000 WI App 197, ¶4, 238 Wis. 2d 506
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5985 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
of an ordinance and a state statute, both of which we review de novo. State v. Ozaukee Cnty. Bd. of Adj., 152 Wis
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=143903 - 2015-07-06

State v. Nora A. Cadotte
de novo. Id. ¶6 “Warrantless searches and seizures are ‘per se unreasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7210 - 2005-03-31

State v. Daniel Fredrick Cadotte
de novo. Id. ¶6 “Warrantless searches and seizures are ‘per se unreasonable
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7209 - 2005-03-31

County of Shawano v. Judith K. Minniecheske
reviews de novo. See Socha v. Socha, 183 Wis.2d 390, 393, 515 N.W.2d 337, 338 (Ct. App. 1994); State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9171 - 2005-03-31