Supreme Court of Kansas· 3/5/1999

State v. Applegate

Citations

976 P.2d 936
266 Kan. 1072
1999 Kan. LEXIS 107

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a civil settlement fully compensated the victim’s losses and thus precluded the imposition of criminal restitution
holding that because the state was not a party to a settlement agreement, \[a] civil release of claims does not and cannot specifically preclude court-ordered restitution in a criminal case\
holding that because the state was not a party to a settlement agreement, \[a] civil release of claims does not and cannot specifically preclude court-ordered restitution in a criminal case\
holding State not a party to settlement agreement and therefore a civil release of claims does not and cannot specifically preclude court-ordered restitution in a criminal case
noting that, while restitution may serve a rehabilitative or deterrence function, it is distinguishable from 17 criminal fines—which are punitive in nature.
recognizing “[t]he measure of reparation or restitution to be ordered, pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4610[d][l], is the amount that reimburses the victim for the actual loss suffered.” [Emphasis added.]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lockett

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.