Legal Opinion

State of Minnesota, (A15-0984), (A15-0998) v. Chao Moua, (A15-0984), (A15-0998).

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided January 25, 2016No. A15-984,A15-998PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BJORKMAN, Judge.

Chao Moua was convicted of one count of identity theft in violation of MinmStat. § 609.527, subds. 2, 3(5), and ordered to pay restitution to 15 individuals who sustained economic loss or took remedial action as a result of the theft. Moua appeals, arguing that the identity-theft statute’s $1,000 minimum restitution provision for direct victims violates his right to procedural due process. In a separate appeal, the State of Minnesota argues that the district court erred by requiring individuals to present evidence of resulting loss or harm to qualify as direct victims…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  2. American Family Insurance Group v. SchroedlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  3. Amaral v. Saint Cloud HospitalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  4. Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of MinnetristaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
  5. Sawh v. City of Lino LakesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State of Minnesota v. Emile ReyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API