Cited by

¶ 12 (App. 2005) (citation omitted); –36 ¶ 24 (App. 2020) (the superior court’s injunctive authority allows it to address equitable defenses).

¶ 7 (App. 2005) (explaining superior courts are presumed to know and follow the law).

We will uphold the court’s restitution order if the amount of restitution ordered “bears a reasonable relationship to the victim’s loss.” ¶ 10 (App. 2005) (citation omitted).

¶ 10 (App. 2005); ¶ 9 (App. 2002).

“To ensure that the victim is made whole, the court has broad discretion in setting the restitution amount based on the facts of the case.” ¶ 12 (App. 2005).

Because the superior court resolved conflicting testimony, this court will uphold the restitution award if the evidence establishes it bears “a reasonable relationship to the victim’s loss.” ¶ 10 (App. 2005).

“[R]ecovery should not be limited to fair market value when that measure is less than the actual economic loss.” ¶ 16 (App. 2005).

A restitution order must be based on facts that are established by a preponderance of the evidence, ¶ 6 (App. 2005), and will be upheld “if it bears a reasonable relationship to the victim’s loss,” Ryan A., 202 Ariz. at 24, ¶ 20.

See, ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (to ensure a victim is made whole, the trial court has broad discretion in setting the restitution amount based on the facts of the case, though it may not order restitution that would make the victim more than whole).

-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).

¶ 7, (citations omitted).

Since we assume the superior court knows and correctly applies the law, ¶ 7 (App. 2005), we interpret the statement to bias, prejudice or interest as merely being shorthand for the correct standard for judicial disqualification.

¶ 10, (appellate court reviews restitution order for abuse of discretion).

And “[a] trial judge is not required to expressly state the burden of proof applied; [instead, this Court] assume[s] the judge applied the proper burden of proof.” ¶ 7

See, e.g., Wilkinson, , 39 P.3d at 1132 (contracting without license; eontractee victim); ¶¶ 2-3 , (unlawful use of means of transportation; car owner victim); ¶¶ 3, 15 , 789-90 (App. 2004) (attempted escape; state prison victim); ¶¶ 11-13 , (resisting arrest

See, ¶¶ 11-12 , (explaining that, under Arizona's statutory scheme, victims who suffer an economic loss are entitled to be restored to their "economic status quo that existed before the crime occurred"; however, "the court may not order restitution that would make the victim more than w

¶ 10 “Arizona’s statutory scheme requiring restitution in criminal cases is based on the principle that the offender should make reparations to the victim by restoring the victim to his economic status quo that existed before the crime occurred.” ¶ 11