Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Christensen

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided August 7, 2017No. A16-1029; A16-1372Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

SMITH, TRACY M., Judge

(concurring in part, dissenting in part)

I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion reversing the restitution award. The plain language of the statutes leads me to conclude that a conservator need not be a “victim” to recover restitution on behalf of the protected person, and that the inclusion of family members, guardians, and custodians in the definition of “victim” does not remove a conservator’s independent statutory authority to seek restitution on the protected person’s behalf. The restitution statute and the conservator statute are properly read…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLCSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  2. State v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
  3. Haugland v. Mapleview Lounge & Bottleshop, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
  4. State v. BarrientosSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API