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. Scroggins, 810 P.2d 631.

38 citing documents.

  • E. H. v. Hon. Slayton 568 P.3d 377 Ariz. 2025
  • E. H. v. Hon. Slayton 568 P.3d 377 Ariz. 2025
    (cleaned up) ( and then quoting In re Maricopa Cnty.
  • E.H. v. Hon Slayton 491 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • E.H. v. Hon Slayton 491 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Subsection 13-603.C “imposes upon the trial court an affirmative duty to determine the amount of the victim’s economic loss and to order restitution in that amount.”
  • 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
    See, (holding superior “court did not err in ordering payment of restitution for the unpaid medical expenses to the victim even though future reimbursement may be paid by an insurer who has not sought reimbursement”); State v. Howard, 168 Ariz. 8 STATE v. REED Opinion of the Court 458, 460 (App. 1991) (affirming restitution order awarding victim future medical expenses and future lost wages).3 D. The Victim’s Attorney Did Not Privately Prosecute Reed in Violation of Reed’s Due
  • State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Accordingly, we have long held that the amount of a victim’s economic loss should be determined “when the parties and the evidence are available and the defendant’s obligations to society are being defined.”
  • State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Jerry Alan Nuckols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Jerry Alan Nuckols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    §§ 13-603(C), 13-804(E), (G)
  • 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
    -18 (App.2003); , , -71 , -91 (App.1978).
  • 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. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    We will uphold the restitution award if it bears a reasonable relationship to the victim’s loss, , and the state need only present enough evidence to show that relationship
  • State v. Tackman 902 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Tackman 902 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Holguin 870 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Holguin 870 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    see State v. Moore, 149 Ariz; 176, 177, (restitution cannot be imposed independently of sentencing); , (restitution is part of sentencing process).
  • 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
  • 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. Barrs 833 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Barrs 833 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    § 13-603(C)[ 1 ]imposes upon the trial court an affirmative duty to determine the amount of the victim’s economic loss and to order restitution in that amount.”
  • 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
    a reasonable relationship to the victim’s loss...”
  • State v. Ellis 838 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Ellis 838 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Lewus 825 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Lewus 825 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    we stated that the amount of the victim’s economic loss should be determined as a part of sentencing, when the parties and the evidence are available and defendant’s obligations to society are being defined.
  • 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
  • State v. Howard 815 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Howard 815 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    In such a situation, a restitution order including only those expenses incurred as of the time of sentencing would not make the victim “whole.” While the award of restitution must “bear[] a reasonable relationship to the victim’s loss,” , it cannot always be confined to “easily measurable damages.”