Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Maxwell, 802 N.W.2d 849.

18 citing documents.

Devin Matthew Weiland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
1-52 (Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Tami Lee Feldhake Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In other words, a district court’s decision to order restitution is appropriate when a victim’s losses are a “reasonably foreseeable result of, and were directly caused by, [the defendant’s] 8 actions.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Jordan Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The burden of proof on the s tate “must be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.” Id.; see also State v. Maxwell , (concluding that a defendant has no right to a jury trial on restitution), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Yusuf Abdirahman Yusuf Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In support of his argument, , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Josphe Kriesel Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Furthermore, a victim’s loss must be “a reasonably foreseeable result of” the defendant’s actions, review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
See, –53 (Minn. App. 2011) (upholding restitution award of more than $200,000 where the victim was unable to refinance a home mortgage because of identity theft), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jerrmaine Winston Knowles Minn. Ct. App. 2017
at 142; −52 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
15, 2014); (stating that a recoverable economic loss is “a reasonably foreseeable result of, and .
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
-52 (Minn. App. 2011) (holding that restitution is not a fact which increases the penalty for a crime because Minnesota statutes do not provide a statutory maximum for restitution amounts), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An economic loss must be “a reasonably foreseeable result of, and [be] directly caused by, [a defendant’s] actions.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
Peter Loren Martel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Peter Loren Martel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The primary purpose of restitution is “to compensate the crime victim for losses by restoring the victim’s original financial condition.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Sara Ann Berkness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sara Ann Berkness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “[w]hether to allow a particular item of restitution is a question of law subject to de novo review.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014