Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. May

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided December 6, 1996No. 95-435Published

1DissentMorse, J.

In a period of otherwise increasing judicial sensitivity to the victims of crime, I believe today’s decision is a setback.

In most cases, a victim’s only realistic chance to recover damages is the restitution process. Hence, as the statutory scheme makes clear, restitution is a favored remedy under the law. The statute mandates that “[rjestitution shall be considered in every case in which a victim of a crime has suffered a material loss or has incurred medical expenses.” 13 V.S.A. § 7043(a) (emphasis added). It further provides that “[w]hen restitution is not ordered, the court shall set…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. JarvisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1986
  2. Lemnah v. American Breeders Service, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1984
  3. State v. IhdeCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 1995
  4. Retrovest Associates, Inc. v. BryantSupreme Court of Vermont · 1990
  5. State v. WebbSupreme Court of Vermont · 1989

4 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