Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie, 189 P.3d 393.

32 citing documents.

State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
of Maricopa, ¶ 14 (2008) (citing authority).4 4 The option of pressing a separate civil lawsuit does not, as Davis infers, displace the ability to seek criminal restitution.
E. H. v. Hon. Slayton 568 P.3d 377 Ariz. 2025
E. H. v. Hon. Slayton 568 P.3d 377 Ariz. 2025
of Maricopa, ¶ 13 (2008).
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 502 P.3d 979 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 502 P.3d 979 Ariz. 2022
of Maricopa, ¶ 28 (2008) (stating that criminal restitution will not always fully compensate the victim because losses may not “flow directly from the crime” and echoing concerns about “too broadly combin[ing] civil liability with criminal sentencing” (quoting Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. at 30 ¶ 12)); Patel, 251 Ariz. at 135 ¶ 14 (“
In Re Marissa C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Marissa C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor’s ¶ 11 (2008).
In Re Brigham H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Brigham H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Gilbert Prosecutor’s ¶ 13 (2008).
State v. Matzdorff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Matzdorff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor’s 472, ¶¶ 13, 26–27 (2008).
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel 486 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel 486 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2021
in the full amount of the [victim’s] economic loss.’” ¶ 7 (2008) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
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 Town of Gilbert Prosecutor’s ¶ 1 (2008) (finding “restitution to be paid by a defendant convicted of contracting without a license may be reduced by any value conferred on the homeowner”).
State v. Patel 452 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Patel 452 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Maricopa, ¶ 7 (2008) (“The [VBR] gives victims the right to prompt restitution for any loss they incur as a result of a crime.”) 4 STATE v. PATEL Opinion of the Court (emphasis added)
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
County of Maricopa, ¶ 13 (2008).
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
County of Maricopa (Matykiewicz), ¶ 11, (citing A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Summer Lynn Leon 381 P.3d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Summer Lynn Leon 381 P.3d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
See Town of Gilbert Prosecutor’s (“Restitution is not meant to penalize the defendant; that function is served by incarceration, fines, or probation.”); (purpose of restitution not to punish); (App
Gallagher v. Tucson Unified School District 349 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Gallagher v. Tucson Unified School District 349 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Opinion of the Court event.” Town of Gilbert Prosecutor’s
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See Town of Gilbert Prosecutor’s , (restitution limited to “amount necessary to recompense direct losses”).
Baker v. Dolphin Beach Rental & Management, LLC 233 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Baker v. Dolphin Beach Rental & Management, LLC 233 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
We acknowledge “the legislature’s strong interest in protecting the public from unlicensed contractors, which is evidenced by the onerous requirements for licensure.” ¶ 28
Garza v. Swift Transportation Co. 213 P.3d 1008 Ariz. 2009
Garza v. Swift Transportation Co. 213 P.3d 1008 Ariz. 2009
We are not, however, “‘prisoners of the past,’ particularly when the language of the statute at issue ‘does not compel the interpretation reached in previous cases.’” Town of Gilbert Prosecutor’s Office v. Downie (Matykiewicz), ¶ 34, (Hurwitz, J., concurring) (quoting Lowing v. Allstate Ins.
State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009