Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Iniguez, 821 P.2d 194.

52 citing documents.

State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Hobbs v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hobbs v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-38 (App. 1991) (explaining that restitution may not exceed the victim’s economic loss after crediting payments from a civil settlement); see also In re William L., III, ¶ 12 (App. 2005).
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“[T[he statutory scheme contains no hint that the Legislature intended to go beyond full compensation and confer a windfall.”); see also A.R.S.
Lindsay R. v. Cohen 343 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lindsay R. v. Cohen 343 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
“We may also examine the subject matter, effects, consequences, reason and spirit of the statutes.”
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie 189 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2008
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie 189 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2008
¶ 13 Reducing “loss” by any benefits conferred furthers the restitutory purposes of making the victim whole, ¶ 12 , ¶ 10 , and rehabilitating the offender, Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 13 , 39 P.3d at 1134
State of Arizona v. Clayton M. Guilliams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Clayton M. Guilliams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Disposition ¶27 “When an appellate court cannot determine the basis of the restitution order from the record, the proper remedy is to vacate that portion of the sentence, and remand to the trial court to reconsider the propriety of the restitution order and to specify the b asis for its determination.” 35
In Re Andrew A. 58 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Andrew A. 58 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
The entry of restitution as a result of criminal proceedings brought by the state is independent of a civil action brought by the victim against the malfeasor because “restitution is not a claim which belongs to the victim, but a remedial measure that the court is statutorily obligated to employ.”
In Re Frank H. 973 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re Frank H. 973 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 958 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 958 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pfeil v. Smith 900 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Pfeil v. Smith 900 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Udall v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Udall v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Contreras 885 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Contreras 885 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Foy, 176 Ariz. at 169 , 859 P.2d at 793
State v. Carbajal 868 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Carbajal 868 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matter of Estate of Vigliotto 870 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Matter of Estate of Vigliotto 870 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Foy 859 P.2d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Foy 859 P.2d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Id.; , (in reviewing statutory scheme, the court must attempt to determine the legislative intent, review the statutory language, and examine the subject matter, effects, consequences, reason and spirit of the statute).
State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Freeman 848 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Freeman 848 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See Steffey, 173 Ariz. at 94 , 839 P.2d at 1139 ; Howard, 163 Ariz. at 51 , 785 P.2d at 1239
State v. Blanton 844 P.2d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Blanton 844 P.2d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
§ 13-105(11) (economic loss includes lost earnings); -39 , -200 (App.1991).
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
(court also noted that “the victims’ attorney advised the probation officer that they did not wish to pursue criminal restitution from the defendant,” id.).
State v. Reynolds 832 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Reynolds 832 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
: One of the purposes of mandatory restitution is reparation to the victim.
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
(holding that a civil settlement of the victim’s claim against a defendant does not bar a restitution order for the same loss).