Court of Appeals of Arizona· 4/11/1991

State v. Iniguez

Citations

821 P.2d 194
169 Ariz. 533
84 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 26
1991 Ariz. App. LEXIS 79

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that restitution may not exceed the victim’s economic loss after crediting payments from a civil settlement
stating the distinction between civil damages and restitution means that a victim’s release of civil liability does not prevent the court from ordering the criminal law remedy of restitution
“[T[he statutory scheme contains no hint that the Legislature intended to go beyond full compensation and confer a windfall.”
in reviewing statutory scheme, the court must attempt to determine the legislative intent, review the statutory language, and examine the subject matter, effects, consequences, reason and spirit of the statute
“Because a primary purpose of restitution is to make the victim whole, and the other aim of restitution is rehabilitative rather than punitive, payment beyond that necessary to compensate does not serve the Legislature’s purposes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lankford, Taylor, Contreras

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

20 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.