Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ramsay, 789 N.W.2d 513.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[D]etermining whether an [order] meets the statutory requirements for restitution is a question of law that is fully reviewable by the appellate court.” (explaining that, in the context of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to a guilty verdict based solely on direct evidence, “[t]he appellate court defers to the fact-finder’s credibility determinations and will not reweigh the evid
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
And “whether an item meets the statutory requirements for restitution is a question of law fully reviewable by the appellate court.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We review orders awarding restitution for an abuse of discretion, “[b]ut determining whether an item meets the statutory requirements for restitution is a question of law that is fully reviewable by the appellate court.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
is to compensate the victim.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In addition, the victim’s “compensable loss must be directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.” Nelson, d at 347 (quotation omitted); -18 (Minn. App. 2010) (reversing restitution award that “far exceed[ed] the loss attributable to the offense ”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A victim’s “compensable loss must be ‘directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.’” (); -18 (Minn. App. 2010) (reversing restitution award that “far exceed[ed] the loss attributable to the offense” of conviction).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court abuses its discretion when it awards restitution in an am ount that “far exceeds the loss attributable to the offense of which [a defendant] was convicted.”
Tony Lee Love v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Tony Lee Love v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Restitution has a dual purpose of rehabilitating the defendant and compensating the victim, but the primary purpose in Minnesota is to 3 compensate the victim.”
Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Peter Loren Martel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Peter Loren Martel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 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
Abdulkadir Ali Mohamud v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Abdulkadir Ali Mohamud v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Donald Timothy Palardis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Timothy Palardis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“But determining whether an item meets the statutory requirements for restitution is a question of law that is fully reviewable by the appellate court.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. George Alan Vanzee Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Alan Vanzee Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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 den

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by