DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fader, 358 N.W.2d 42.

105 citing documents.

  • State v. Harvey 547 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Terpstra 546 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Terpstra 546 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Maidi 537 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Maidi 537 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1995
    1 to permit a large restitution award, provided the court considers the defendant’s resources when imposing a payment schedule, is also consistent with this court’s
  • State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
    § 611A.53 (only individuals who have incurred economic loss are eligible to receive reparations) (holding that restitution may be awarded to compensate victim for economic loss but not as punitive damages; remanding so parties could present evidence on amount of economic loss).
  • State v. Hanninen 533 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Hanninen 533 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • 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
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated, “the word ‘restitution’ connotes restoring or compensating the victim for his [or her] loss.”
  • State v. Murray 529 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Murray 529 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    (restitution should not be extended to include a form of "punitive damages" without clear legislative intent).
  • State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Maidi 520 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Harwell 515 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Harwell 515 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Maurer 491 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Maurer 491 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Iniguez 821 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • 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
    Appellant, construing “actual economic loss” to require “netting out” of costs and benefits, and Hanson for the proposition that: for a restitution order to be valid, it must reflect the actual economic loss of the victim; the trial court does not have discretion to order restitution for amounts which do not represent economic loss.
  • State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    (trial court inquiry focused on child’s understanding of the need to tell the truth and her capacity to narrate the facts); (trial court has broad discretion in the types of questions asked), pet.
  • State v. Mozeley 450 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Mozeley 450 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    § 611A.045 (1988) (court is to consider “the amount of the economic loss sustained by the victim”); (restitution is intended to restore the victim or compensate for loss).
  • State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Coleman 426 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Coleman 426 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Evidence of specific instances of misconduct by the defendant may be admitted “to contradict the testimony of the defendant or a defense witness.”
  • State v. Belfry 416 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Belfry 416 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • 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. Delcastillo 411 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Delcastillo 411 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    *605 Even though the prosecuting attorney’s remarks were improper, they are not “so serious and prejudicial that defendant’s right to a fair trial was denied.” (new trial motion denied where prosecutor argued his case during opening statement and trial court sustained objection).
  • 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. Hanson 405 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hanson 405 N.W.2d 467 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
  • State v. Smith 384 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Smith 384 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Olson 381 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Olson 381 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 378 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Anderson 378 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The supreme court defined restitution as “restoring or compensating the victim for his loss.”
  • State v. Hill 363 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1985