Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Palubicki, 727 N.W.2d 662.

81 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Generally, restitution may cover, but is not limited to, “any out-of- 4 pocket losses resulting from the crime.” (quotation omitted).
A16-0880 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
14 “The primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” State v. Palubicki , d 662, 666 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Emile Rey 890 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Emile Rey 890 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Generally, restitution may cover, but is not limited to, “any out-of-pocket losses resulting from the crime.” (citing to the general restitution statute, Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd.
State of Minnesota v. John William Zastrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John William Zastrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mary Marie Garner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mary Marie Garner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding wage-loss claims of a murder 6 victim’s children due to voluntarily attending trial were not too attenuated from the defendant’s actions and could be awarded).
Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2016
Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2016
1a (2014)); (explaining that the appellant “did not dispute the Crime Victims Reparations Board’s restitution request, acknowledging that the funds, which had been used to cover funeral expenses, were clearly reimbursable under the law”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: B. A. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: B. A. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review granted (Minn. Sept.
Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
[is] so attenuated in its cause that it cannot be said to result from the defendant’s criminal act.”
Peter Loren Martel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Peter Loren Martel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution to a murder victim’s adult children for their personal expenses resulting from the murder, including expenses for their voluntary attendance at the trial).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javier Rodriguez 863 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javier Rodriguez 863 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
[is] so attenuated in its cause that it cannot be said to result from the defendant’s criminal act.” (declining to adopt broad test that restitution may be recovered for any loss that would not have occurred “but for” the commission of the crime for fear of expanding a restitution award beyond the statutory provision).
State of Minnesota v. Sara Ann Berkness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sara Ann Berkness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1(a) (1996)] clearly and unambiguously leaves the decision to award restitution to the discretion of the trial court, subject to review of an abuse of its discretion.”); (“We have recognized that the restitution statute’s broad language gives the district court significant discretion to award restitution for a victim’s expenses.”).
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Steven Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Steven Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Toby Earl Johnson 851 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Toby Earl Johnson 851 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2014
-68 (Minn. 2007) (holding that an issue was not yet ripe for consideration when a defendant argued that requiring him to pay a certain kind of restitution would lead to a double recovery on the part of the victim’s family, because the victim’s children had “not yet received payment in excess of their economic l
State v. Nelson 796 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2011
State v. Nelson 796 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2011
ANALYSIS “The primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” State v. Palubicki
State v. Arends 786 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Arends 786 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1(a); (stating that the primary purpose of restitution statute is to restore crime victims to their financial position before the commission of the crime).
In Re the Welfare of E.S.C. 731 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of E.S.C. 731 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2007