DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Olson, 381 N.W.2d 899.

36 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • A16-0880 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    (affirming restitution for full amount of loss through theft by swindle despite jury’s acquittal of defendant on more serious charge); d 899, 900-01 (Minn. App. 1986) (affirming restitution order for stolen items when defendant was convicted of burglary but acquitted of theft).
  • State of Minnesota v. Berry Alan Willis 883 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Berry Alan Willis 883 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    This court has interpreted the statute to require that the claimed loss be “directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.” (quotation omitted); (holding that restitution is proper for “victim’s losses [that] are directly caused by appellant’s conduct for which he was convicted”).
  • State of Minnesota v. Ryan Roy Becker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Ryan Roy Becker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    (holding that a district court may order a defendant to pay restitution exceeding the monetary parameters of the theft offense of which he was convicted, but only if the higher amount is supported by a preponderance of the evidence); (affirming restitution award for money stolen where defendant was convicted of burglary but acquitted of theft charge stemming from same incident).
  • Kenneth Ernest Poland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Kenneth Ernest Poland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (stating that the district court’s sentence did not violate any provision of the plea bargain, but rather went beyond its terms); (discussing Chapman and clarifying that in remanding, this court “did not agree with Chapman’s contention that restitution is limited to amounts charged in the counts to which she pled”).
  • 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. Nelson 796 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Nelson 796 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2011
    However, a loss claimed as an item of restitution by a crime victim must have some factual relationship to the crime committed — a compensable loss must be “directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.” (quotation omitted); (holding that restitution is proper for “victim’s losses [that] are directly caused by appellant’s conduct for which he was convicted”); see also Ramsay, d at 517 (reversing restitution award that “far exceeds the loss attributable to the offense of w
  • State v. Latimer 604 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Latimer 604 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    ANALYSIS “The trial court has broad discretion in imposing restitution.” ().
  • In Re the Welfare of J.A.D. 603 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • In Re the Welfare of J.A.D. 603 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Esler 553 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Esler 553 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    “[W]here the victim’s losses are directly caused by [the defendant’s] conduct for which he was convicted there is nothing improper in ordering restitution.” (emphasis supplied).
  • State v. Hanninen 533 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Hanninen 533 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    (restitution is proper where victim’s losses are directly caused by appellant’s conduct).
  • In Re the Welfare of D.D.G. 532 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • In Re the Welfare of D.D.G. 532 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    This court has added, “where the victim’s losses are directly caused by [the defendant’s] conduct for which he [or she] was convicted there is nothing improper in ordering restitution.”
  • State v. Dendy 520 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Dendy 520 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Restitution is proper “where the victim’s losses are directly caused by appellant’s conduct.” (affirming restitution where the expenses were a “direct result” of the crime).
  • State v. O'BRIEN 459 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. O'BRIEN 459 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Wolf 413 N.W.2d 620 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Wolf 413 N.W.2d 620 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Jola 409 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Jola 409 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Anderson 405 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Anderson 405 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Srey 396 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Srey 396 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    -01 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) ( pet.
  • State v. Larson 393 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Larson 393 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1986