Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 9681 - 9690 of 30134 for consulta de causas.

[PDF] State v. Scott F. Strerath
such questions de novo. State v. Wilson, 170 Wis. 2d 720, 722, 490 N.W.2d 48 (Ct. App. 1992). We consider
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2645 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
is a question of law that we decide de novo. State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶9, 274 Wis. 2d 568, 682 N.W.2d 433
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=112186 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Mooney & Lesage & Associates, Ltd. v. Germantown Marketplace, Inc.
judgment de novo, applying the same methodology as the trial court. See M & I First Nat’l Bank v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14810 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
to the party seeking relief is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. ¶9 Here, Pozo dictates
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=136846 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
such questions de novo. See State v. Ploeckelman, 2007 WI App 31, ¶8, 299 Wis. 2d 251, 729 N.W.2d 784. ¶6
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=230947 - 2018-12-26

[PDF] NOTICE
. STAT. § 805.17(2), but we review de novo whether those facts meet the constitutional standard
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=30026 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
the arbitrator has exceeded his or her authority in such a manner is a question of law we review de novo. Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106319 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] State v. Steven T. Fink
the application of constitutional principles to the facts of the case, which we review de novo. Klessig, 211
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4909 - 2017-09-19

State v. Emlin E. Landreth
counsel’s conduct amounted to ineffective assistance is a question of law which we review de novo. See id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4238 - 2005-03-31

County of Dane v. Kellie Ann Dixon
is a question of law which we review de novo, owing no deference to the trial court’s analysis. State v
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12119 - 2005-03-31