Skip to main content
· 2/17/1989

State v. Hinckley

Citations

  • 777 P.2d 417
  • 13 Kan. App. 2d 417
  • 777 P.2d 857
  • 1989 Kan. App. LEXIS 109

How courts have described this case

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

  • reversing restitution amount based on the replacement costs of the stolen property rather than the value of the property at the time it was stolen
  • vacating a restitution order and remanding for a second restitution hearing because the district court ordered defendant to pay the replacement value of the stolen property less 15 percent rather than the fair market value
  • \We vacate the 8 amount of restitution ordered and remand for a second restitution hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be awarded.\
  • amount of restitution ordered after a plea of nolo contendere was vacated
  • amount of restitution ordered after a plea of nolo contendere was vacated

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Abbott, Davis, Larson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.