Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Anderson, 507 N.W.2d 245.

20 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Fidele Ndaruhutse v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Fidele Ndaruhutse v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(remanding for resentencing when the district court ordered the defendant to pay $2,000 in restitution and 10 restitution was not contemplated by the plea agreement), -47 (Minn. App. 1993) (affirming the district court’s more than $10,000 restitution order when the record suggested the defendant “should have been aware that the victim might seek and the court might order restitution”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Brent Lanier Lynch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
District courts have “wide discretion in ordering restitution and determining the appropriate amount of restitution.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- 72 (Minn. 1999); review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
–60 (Minn. 2005); 247 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that record suggested that appellant should have been aware tha t victim might seek restitution, thus, his failure to object earlier constituted a waiver to his challenge on appeal), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
District courts have “wide discretion in ordering restitution and determining the appropriate amount of restitution.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
Louis Ambrose, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
District courts have “wide discretion in ordering restitution and determining the appropriate amount of restitution.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Tenerelli, d at 67 1-72; review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Brittany Ann Vacko Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brittany Ann Vacko Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Lester Ray Wiley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lester Ray Wiley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(affirming an order of restitution when “by implication, restitution was potentially involved” because the district court ordered a victim impact statement before sentencing, and presentencing documents recommended restitution), review denied (Minn. Dec.
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
We have previously offered, at least as dictum, that restitution for the expenditure of accrued sick leave “is clearly related to [the victim’s] economic losses.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Anderson 520 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Anderson 520 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1994