In Re the Welfare of M.R.H.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ROSS, Judge.
Appellant M.R.H. is an adjudicated delinquent who challenges the district court’s order for restitution, arguing that the restitution impermissibly duplicates damages that M.R.H. paid in a civil settlement and is based on losses known to the victims at sentencing. M.R.H. also challenges the portion of the restitution that compensates one of the victims for the value of accrued employment leave that the victim expended to tend to a different, hospitalized victim of M.R.H.’s delinquent conduct. We affirm.
FACTS
A dispute about a fireworks incident escalated into an argument…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. TenerelliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- Mon-Ray, Inc. v. Granite Re, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- State v. TholeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- State v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Mason v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. RamsayCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- State v. ArendsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- State v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- Woodruff v. 2008 MercedesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013