Legal Opinion
In Re the Welfare of D.D.G.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided June 6, 1995No. C5-94-2515PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DANIEL F. FOLEY, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court’s order requiring appellant to pay restitution, arguing that (1) restitution is not allowable where there was no damage to person(s) or property, and (2) payments from the reward fund voluntarily established to assist in the investigation of a crime are not compensable as restitution because they are not a direct result of the crime. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant D.D.G. (d.o.b. 12-3-78) was adjudicated delinquent after he admitted to one count of interference with use of public property, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 624.72,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. FaderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Village of Blaine v. Independent School District No. 12Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
- State v. OlsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- State v. MullerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- People v. DillinghamColorado Court of Appeals · 1994
3Cited by9 opinions
- Commonwealth v. McIntyreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
- State v. PalubickiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- State v. TholeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- State v. EslerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- Grace v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.