Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668.

95 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kenneth E. Andersen 871 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2015
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. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
-65 (Minn.2014) (concluding that the State did not meet its burden of establishing the amount of damage the defendant caused to the victim’s car); -64 (Minn.2001) (concluding that the restitution amount imposed by the district court was not an abuse of discretion in light of the defendant’s ability to pay); (concluding that the district court was within its discretion by ordering restitution for the cost of a healing ceremony); -86 (Minn.1995) (concluding that district courts have flexibility to
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
State of Minnesota v. Sara Ann Berkness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sara Ann Berkness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
672 (Minn. 1999) (“This broad language [of Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Steven Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Louis Steven Baratto Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Louis Steven Baratto Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[District] courts are given broad discretion in awarding restitution.”
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
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander 855 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander 855 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[District] courts are given broad discretion in awarding restitution.”
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Brian Christensen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Brian Christensen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Miller 842 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Miller 842 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 839 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2013
State v. Wenthe 839 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2013
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.
Anderson v. State 794 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Anderson v. State 794 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Ramsay 789 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ramsay 789 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Palubicki 727 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 2007
State v. Palubicki 727 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 2007
-72 (Minn.1999) (concluding that the need for a Hmong healing ceremony resulted from the appellant’s assault on the victim and that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the appellant to pay restitution); -85 (Minn.1995) (affirming a trial court order gr
In Re the Welfare of M.R.H. 716 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of M.R.H. 716 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
section[ ] 611A.04 ..., delegating the decision to the sentencing court.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
State v. Wilkens 671 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Wilkens 671 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
Minnesota Statutes § 611A.04 (2000) explicitly provides for funeral expenses, and we have held that this statute gives trial courts “significant discretion to award restitution for a victim’s expenses.” (trial court within its discretion in ordering restitution for expenses related to a traditional Hmong healing ceremony).
State v. Bjork 610 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2000
State v. Bjork 610 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2000
§§ 611A.04 and 611A.045 (1998); see also State v. Tenerelli (affirming restitution award ‘for costs associated with a Hmong Hu Plig ceremony, holding that the ceremony fit within the statutory definition of “any out-of-pocket losses resulting from the crime”).