DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. French, 801 P.2d 482.

39 citing documents.

  • State v. Reed 483 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Reed 483 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    n.3 (App. 1990) (noting an “order of restitution is a separately appealable order”).
  • State v. Leal 455 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Leal 455 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    § 13-603(C), restitution to state agency for services provided to victim of child molestation and her mother); (distinguishing Merrill and, without citing A.R.S.
  • State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See State v. French , , 248 n.3, , 483 n.3 (App. 1990) (noting an "order of restitution is a separately appealable order").
  • State v. Farnsworth 389 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • State v. ZAPUTIL 207 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. ZAPUTIL 207 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    See, -49 , -84 (App.1990) (motel owner not victim entitled to cleaning costs incurred as result of sexual assault on premises); , (state not victim entitled to recoup costs of prosecution).
  • In Re Erika V. 983 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Erika V. 983 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (motel owner could not obtain restitution from defendant convicted of sexual assault for damages to motel room incurred during the sexual assault); , (third party who suffered damages in collision with stolen ear coul
  • Hospital Corp. of Northwest, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Health Services 988 P.2d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Hospital Corp. of Northwest, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Health Services 988 P.2d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (we give words reasonable and ordinary meaning when the legislature could have limited the words if it intended a different meaning).
  • In Re Alton D. 970 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Alton D. 970 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    Nor did Eric L. address the possibility that the restitution order may be separately appeal-able under the analogous principles in the criminal context, , 248 n. 1, , 483 n. 1 (1990).
  • State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Lindsley 953 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Lindsley 953 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Ann. (“A.R.S.”) §§ 13-603(0), 13-804
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676 868 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676 868 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    (motel owner was not victim of crime of sexual assault and thus was not entitled to restitution for damages to motel room incurred during course of sexual assault); , (defendant who pled *354 guilty to car theft not l
  • State v. Steffy 839 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Steffy 839 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Smith 831 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. West 845 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. West 845 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    248 n. 3, , 483 n. 3 (App.1990).
  • State v. Smith 831 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Prieto 836 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Prieto 836 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    to support his argument.
  • State v. Zierden 828 P.2d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Zierden 828 P.2d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    to pay restitution 'only for an offense that he has admitted, upon which he has been found guilty, or upon which he has agreed to pay restitution.’ ” , ( , ) (second emphasis added).
  • State v. Fancher 818 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Fancher 818 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    Although piecemeal appeals are disfavored, we note that ‘‘[t]he order of restitution is a separately appealable order.” State v. French, *267 , 248 n. 3, , 483 n. 3 (App.1990).
  • State v. Ferguson 798 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Ferguson 798 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Jenkins v. First Baptist Church 801 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Jenkins v. First Baptist Church 801 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990