DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pearce, 751 P.2d 603.

32 citing documents.

  • McAlister v. Loeb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • McAlister v. Loeb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Though damages for loss of use of a chattel traditionally are measured by reference to the chattel’s market value (as we have recognized, ), under the modern view, damages may be measured by lost profits if the plaintiff needed the chattel to conduct his business.
  • In Re Joseph L. 493 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • In Re Joseph L. 493 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • 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
    (concluding loss “victims might suffer in the future as the result of having no homeowner’s liability insurance is too indirect to be the subject of restitution under the provisions of our statutes”); (finding lost profits and breach of a lease were consequential damages not recoverable in restitution).
  • State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    ¶13 to support his argument that a court violates due process and a defendant‟s right to a jury trial when it imposes reimbursement under § 13-1709.
  • 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 a
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    39 P.3d at 1133 (losses that “would not have occurred without the concurrence of a second causal event” were consequential damages); (damages resulting from defendant’s conduct and action or inaction of others too indirect to recover in restitution); (lost profits consequential damages of theft not flowing from the acts to which defendant pled guilty).
  • In Re William L. 119 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • In Re William L. 119 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    For example, -90 , -06 (App.1988), we held that a company's loss of lease profits from the conversion of its property were non-recoverable consequential damages.
  • 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
    in support of its assertion that restitution is appropriate because the victim has a civil action against E.G. for trespass to chattels.
  • State v. Barrett 864 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Barrett 864 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
  • 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
    defendant argues that the amount of restitution should have been based on the difference between fair market value at the time of theft and fair market value at the time of recovery or, essentially, the measure of damages used in a civil action for conversion or trespass to chattels.
  • State v. Young 842 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Young 842 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    in which Division Two of this court held that “lost profits” suffered by the victim due to a breached lease were consequential, damages that were not recoverable as restitution for “economic loss” under Ariz.Rev.
  • State v. Morris 839 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Morris 839 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Iniguez 821 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Iniguez 821 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Wideman 798 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Wideman 798 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    Pearce pled guilty to theft resulting from his conversion of three pieces of equipment from Woudenberg Leasing Company.
  • State v. French 801 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. French 801 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990