Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of M.R.H., 716 N.W.2d 349.

19 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A24-1098 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
4 reviews de novo.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Third, Allison asserts that the only types of family losses that meet the direct-cause standard are those incurred by a family member in assisting the minor victim of the offense, such as by personally tending to the child in the hospital, as in In re Welfare of M.R.H., 7 rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
Kurt Lee Villa, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See id.; (affirming post-sentencing restitution order when, although victims claimed $21,6 19.96 in restitution affidavit submitted at sentencing, the affidavit remained to be investigated), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1(b); (explaining “it is the district court’s lack of knowledge that allows it to amend or issue a restitution order after sentencing, not the victim’s”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5 But “[w]hether a particular claim for restituti on fits within the stat utory definition is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.” d 349, 351 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(noting that application of restitution statutes to particular claim is a question of law), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: K. D. M., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether a particular claim for restitution fits within the statutory definition is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Sara Ann Berkness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sara Ann Berkness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Although accrued leave is not one of the losses specifically listed in the statute, earned but unused leave is a compensable asset, and its loss therefore may be recoverable by a victim-employee through restitution.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes 831 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes 831 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(holding that because parents of injured child were not parties to their son’s settlement agreement they were neither entitled to compensation under the agreement nor bound by the re *15 lease of liability contained therein), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Nelson 796 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2011
State v. Nelson 796 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2011
But determining whether an item meets *347 the statutory requirements for restitution is a question of law that is fully reviewable by the appellate court.” (quotation omitted) (); (stating that appellate court reviews as a question of law whether a particular item is eligible for restitution under restitution statute), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Ramsay 789 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ramsay 789 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
at 889 (“A valid settlement agreement is final, conclusive, and binding upon the parties.”) (citing Theis v. Theis, 271 Minn. 199, 204 , ); (holding that victim’s parents, who were not parties to civil settlement agreement, could request restitution for losses they incurred as a result of crime), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Arends 786 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Arends 786 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
review denied (Minn. Aug.