Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Foy, 859 P.2d 789.

26 citing documents.

In Re Cheyenne H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re Cheyenne H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In making this determination, “Arizona’s restitution statutes direct the trial court to [apply] a ‘but for’ or a ‘direct result’ analysis.”
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
the court of appeals reviewed a post-judgment restitution order entered pursuant to a plea agreement.
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
we considered whether A.R.S.
In Re Brendan G. 212 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Brendan G. 212 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Recognized examples of consequential damages include a company's loss of lease profits from the conversion of its property, -90 , -06 (App.1988); post-judgment interest on awards of restitution, -71 , -94 (App.1993); expenses incurred by victims in completing or repairing work performed by unlicensed contractors, Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. at 29, ¶ 10 , 39 P.3d at 1133 ; and attorneys' fees incurred by a deceased victim's spouse in connection with prosecution of a motorist for negligent homicid
State of Arizona v. James Lewandowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. James Lewandowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
see also Pierce v. United States, 255 U.S. 398, 406 (1921).
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
P.2d 789 (App. 1993) (in construing restitution statutes, court reviews statutory scheme by examining legislative intent, the statutory language, the objectives to be accomplished, and the evils to be remedied).
In Re Devon G. 990 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Devon G. 990 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
A court must use its discretion to “modify or add to the conditions of probation ‘at any time prior to the expiration or termination of the period of probation.’ ” Contreras, 180 Ariz. at 453 , 885 P.2d at 141 ( , ).
In re J.G. 993 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In re J.G. 993 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re JG 993 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re JG 993 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
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
See, , (appeal was from May 19th modification of terms of probation imposed on October 9th).
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
9 , Proctor argues the court erred in including that interest in the restitution awards.
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
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