Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Koile v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 6, 2006No. SC05132Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPariente, J.

The aim of the majority’s construction of the restitution statute is laudable. However, the statute’s expedited (compared to the civil justice system) method of making the victim whole falls short of authorizing a victim’s estate or next of kin to receive the victim’s lost future income.

The statutory requirement that a defendant “reimburse the victim for income lost by the victim as a result of the offense” does not, in my view, encompass this form of restitution. First, contrary to the majority’s view, the usual understanding of the term “reimburse” looks backward to losses already incurred,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Glaubius v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1997
  2. United States v. VisinaizCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005
  3. United States v. SerawopCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005
  4. United States v. BedonieDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2004
  5. Sinclair Refining Co. v. ButlerSupreme Court of Florida · 1966

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

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

Powered by the Exa API