Norris v. Kansas Employment Security Board of Review

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “there are instances in which attor- ney fees and litigation costs incurred in separate litigation may be recovered as an element of a plaintiff’s damages”
• requiring that losses recovered via restitution \must 'result from' a defendant's criminal activity in the 'but-for' sense and also must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's criminal activities\
• discussing legislative history of ORS 137.106, and the types of damages that are, and are not, recoverable as restitution
• noting the legislature’s incorporation of some civil law concepts into criminal restitution proceedings
• characterizing the “question at issue in [that] case” as “whether reasonable foreseeability is a limiting concept that a court must consider in deciding whether to award the par- ticular damages sought as restitution” (emphasis added)
• declining to apply the “direct” causation standard proposed by the defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).