People v. Chappelone

How courts have described this case

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

• because prosecutor presented no evidence that store lost any sales of “mass-produced consumer goods” that it “sold in abundance,” judge erred in awarding restitution in amount of retail value rather than replacement cost

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).