Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676, 868 P.2d 365.

43 citing documents.

In Re Cheyenne H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re Cheyenne H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In re Thomas D. 290 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In re Thomas D. 290 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Action No. JV-128676, , ).
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Action No. JV-128676, , (juvenile who unlawfully entered stolen vehicle not jointly and severally liable for restitution when other juveniles not adjudicated delinquent).
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
In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
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
See In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676, P.2d 365 (App. 1994) (provision in plea agreement in which juvenile agreed to pay restitution up to a maximum of $750 if found legally responsible for the damages was not an unc onditional agreement to pa y restitution).
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 68 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 68 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
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
Action No. JV-128676, , and we view the facts in the light most favorable to affirming the court’s findings.
Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance 19 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance 19 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
And, “ ‘where rights are clearly established and defined by statute, equity has no power to change or upset such rights.’” In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676
In Re Sheree M. 4 P.3d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Sheree M. 4 P.3d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676
In Re Alton D. 994 P.2d 402 Ariz. 2000
In Re Alton D. 994 P.2d 402 Ariz. 2000
Before the court can impose an order of restitution, a victim must present evidence to establish that the victim’s loss relates directly to the juvenile’s offense, see In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676, , and to provide a basis for setting an amount that is not speculative.
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
See Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676
In Re Kristen C. 975 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Kristen C. 975 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(citing Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676, , ).
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
Action No. 128676, , (juvenile cannot be ordered to pay restitution absent evidence that victim’s loss is directly related to juvenile’s offense); Maricopa County Juv.
LaBombard v. Samaritan Health System 991 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
LaBombard v. Samaritan Health System 991 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 17 By contrast, lien rights are statutory, and “ “where rights are clearly established and defined by statute, equity has no power to change or upset such rights.’ ” Appeal in Juvenile Action No. JV-128676, , ( , ).
In Re John G. 953 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
In Re John G. 953 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676
In Re Abraham F. 947 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Gerald F. 945 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Gerald F. 945 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Juvenile Action No. JV-128676
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-132905 925 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-132905 925 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Juvenile cites Matter of Juvenile Action No. JV-128676, , for the proposition that restitution to a victim is only appropriate when a causal connection between the victim’s losses and the juvenile’s criminal conduct is established by the evidence.
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-508801 901 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-508801 901 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See Matter of Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676, , (“In exercising its discretion, the juvenile court is not, however, authorized to misapply the law or a legal principle.”).
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-510312 901 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-510312 901 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676