United States v. ANDREW ANTHONY CHRISTOPHER

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that although restitution may be “compensatory, punitive, or a combination of both,” the order of restitution in that case was “more compensatory in nature than penal”
• concluding that although 11 restitution may be “compensatory, punitive, or a combination of both,” the order 12 of restitution in that case was “more compensatory in nature than penal”
• reasoning that restitution was an “equitable remedy ... intended to reimburse a person wronged by the actions of another” and “[t]o absolve the estate from refunding the fruits of the wrongdoing would grant an undeserved windfall”
• noting that restitution is penal and compensatory
• noting “the rule [is] followed almost unanimously by the Courts of Appeals” except for “one case . . . , but that view is based on an erroneous reading of that opinion”
• “To absolve the estate from refunding the fruits of the wrongdoing would grant an un- deserved windfall.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).