Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

People v. Eric S.

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 23, 2010No. A125758PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NEEDHAM, J.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 requires a juvenile ward to pay victim restitution for economic losses incurred as a result of the ward’s criminal conduct. In People v. Duong (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1533 [103 Cal.Rptr.3d 678] (Duong), the court held that victim restitution ordered against adult offenders under Penal Code section 1202.4 may include amounts billed for medical services provided by a health maintenance organization (HMO), even when the victim is an HMO member not required to pay for those medical services. We conclude the reasoning in Duong applies…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. BirkettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  2. People v. MillardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  3. People v. HoveCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  4. People v. Brittany L.California Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. People v. Anthony M.California Court of Appeal · 2007

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. People v. Brooks, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  2. People v. Anthony S.California Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. Hart v. Keenan Properties CA1/5California Court of Appeal · 2020
  4. In re Oscar F. CA3California Court of Appeal · 2014
  5. In re Ronald F. CA1/2California Court of Appeal · 2015

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API