In Re Ryan A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the loss of PTO “falls within the scope of lost wages” for purposes of 20250435-CA 2 2026 UT App 61 State v. Tuyisenge restitution because it is “a real economic loss tied to wages earned” (cleaned up)
• noting that the juvenile’s “tone was such that it frightened the family member who heard it” and “[t]he police were called, not as a ruse, but due to fear”
• the court “has discretion to set the restitution amount according to the facts of the case in order to make the victim whole”
• conviction for \threatening or intimidating\ under A.R.S. § 13-1202(A)(1) (2018) does not require proof that victim felt scared or threatened
• victim's mother awarded $300 for lost wages from missed appointments even though juvenile argued she could have rescheduled those clients
• “It is axiomatic that an objective test does not require a subjective analysis of the belief of the particular person to whom the threat is made.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).