Notes of Decisions
State of Maine v. Michaela C. Davenport, 2016 ME 69 (Me. 2016).
· cites it 13× “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325 (1983 & Supp.1987). In applying the statute as it then existed, we vacated a restitution sentence when the State had “made no showing that [the offender] had the means with which to pay restitution,” State v.”
State v. Meeks, 415 P.3d 400 (Kan. 2018).
· cites it 2× “17-A, § 1325 (directing courts to consider "all relevant factors" when restitution creates a "financial hardship on the offender or dependent of the offender," including number of dependents, living expenses, special needs, income and future earning capacity, and other…”
State v. Berube, 1997 ME 165 (Me. 1997).
· cites it 6× “He also contends that the court did not inquire into his ability to pay as required' by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325 (1983 & Supp.1996), thus improperly ordering restitution.”
State v. Nelson, 2010 ME 40 (Me. 2010).
· cites it 4× “2000) (Class C), 1 and sentencing him, in part, to the payment of restitution pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1325 (2009). We affirm the conviction on Count I.”
State of Maine v. David Bradley, 2016 ME 70 (Me. 2016).
· cites it 6× “See 17-A M.R.S. § 1325 (2015). The Legislature has authorized courts to order restitution to compensate victims for economic loss while helping to rehabilitate the offenders.”
State v. Basu, 875 A.2d 686 (Me. 2005).
· cites it 3× “For a challenge of restitution to be successful, the issue should be raised at sentencing pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325 (1983 & Supp. 2004), in which the defendant must prove incapacity to pay by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Stinson, 424 A.2d 327 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 3× “He already knew from the defendant’s own statement that Stinson lived alone and had his own home. From the evidence at trial, the approximate sum of money involved in the restitution order appeared to be in the vicinity of $106.”
State of Maine v. Christopher T. Knight, 2016 ME 123 (Me. 2016).
· cites it 2× “5 Knight also argues that the cost to repair a private road does not constitute an “economic loss” pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1325(1) (2015). Because neither the MSP nor the owner of the property on which the road is located is qualified to obtain restitution in the first place,…”
State v. O'donnell, 495 A.2d 798 (Me. 1985).
· cites it 2× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325(2)(D) states that restitution shall not be authorized where the amount or method of payment creates an excessive financial hardship on the offender or his dependents.”
State v. Hudson, 470 A.2d 786 (Me. 1984).
· cites it 2× “1 He also argues that the evidence required a finding that payment of restitution would create excessive financial hardship on the defendant and his dependents and was therefore not authorized under 17-A M.”
State v. Cloutier, 646 A.2d 358 (Me. 1994).
· cites it 2× “requires the court to “order restitution where appropriate,” and to state the reason for its failure to do so. 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 1323(1)-(2) (Supp.”
State v. Bouchard, 2005 ME 106 (Me. 2005).
“” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325(1) (Supp.2004). “Economic loss” is defined as “economic detriment consisting of environmental clean-up expense, property loss, allowable expense, work loss, replacement services loss and, if injury causes death, dependent’s economic loss and dependent’s…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1325(1) — 7 cases
State of Maine v. Christopher T. Knight, 2016 ME 123 (Me. 2016).
“5 Knight also argues that the cost to repair a private road does not constitute an “economic loss” pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1325(1) (2015). Because neither the MSP nor the owner of the property on which the road is located is qualified to obtain restitution in the first place,…”
State v. Bouchard, 2005 ME 106 (Me. 2005).
“” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325(1) (Supp.2004). “Economic loss” is defined as “economic detriment consisting of environmental clean-up expense, property loss, allowable expense, work loss, replacement services loss and, if injury causes death, dependent’s economic loss and dependent’s…”
State of Maine v. David Bradley, 2016 ME 70 (Me. 2016).
“See 17-A M.R.S. § 1325 (2015). The Legislature has authorized courts to order restitution to compensate victims for economic loss while helping to rehabilitate the offenders.”
State v. Nelson, 2010 ME 40 (Me. 2010).
“2000) (Class C), 1 and sentencing him, in part, to the payment of restitution pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1325 (2009). We affirm the conviction on Count I.”
State v. Berube, 1997 ME 165 (Me. 1997).
“He also contends that the court did not inquire into his ability to pay as required' by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325 (1983 & Supp.1996), thus improperly ordering restitution.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1325(1)(0) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1325(1)(C) — 11 cases
State v. Meeks, 415 P.3d 400 (Kan. 2018).
“17-A, § 1325 (directing courts to consider "all relevant factors" when restitution creates a "financial hardship on the offender or dependent of the offender," including number of dependents, living expenses, special needs, income and future earning capacity, and other…”
State of Maine v. Michaela C. Davenport, 2016 ME 69 (Me. 2016).
“See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325 (1983 & Supp.1987). In applying the statute as it then existed, we vacated a restitution sentence when the State had “made no showing that [the offender] had the means with which to pay restitution,” State v.”
State v. Nelson, 2010 ME 40 (Me. 2010).
“2000) (Class C), 1 and sentencing him, in part, to the payment of restitution pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1325 (2009). We affirm the conviction on Count I.”
State v. Stinson, 424 A.2d 327 (Me. 1981).
“He already knew from the defendant’s own statement that Stinson lived alone and had his own home. From the evidence at trial, the approximate sum of money involved in the restitution order appeared to be in the vicinity of $106.”
State v. Berube, 1997 ME 165 (Me. 1997).
“He also contends that the court did not inquire into his ability to pay as required' by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325 (1983 & Supp.1996), thus improperly ordering restitution.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1325(2) — 1 case
State v. Berube, 1997 ME 165 (Me. 1997).
“He also contends that the court did not inquire into his ability to pay as required' by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325 (1983 & Supp.1996), thus improperly ordering restitution.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1325(2)(A) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1325(2)(D) — 10 cases
State v. O'donnell, 495 A.2d 798 (Me. 1985).
“17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325(2)(D) states that restitution shall not be authorized where the amount or method of payment creates an excessive financial hardship on the offender or his dependents.”
State v. Hudson, 470 A.2d 786 (Me. 1984).
“1 He also argues that the evidence required a finding that payment of restitution would create excessive financial hardship on the defendant and his dependents and was therefore not authorized under 17-A M.”
State of Maine v. Michaela C. Davenport, 2016 ME 69 (Me. 2016).
“See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325 (1983 & Supp.1987). In applying the statute as it then existed, we vacated a restitution sentence when the State had “made no showing that [the offender] had the means with which to pay restitution,” State v.”
State v. Berube, 1997 ME 165 (Me. 1997).
“He also contends that the court did not inquire into his ability to pay as required' by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325 (1983 & Supp.1996), thus improperly ordering restitution.”
State v. Cloutier, 646 A.2d 358 (Me. 1994).
“requires the court to “order restitution where appropriate,” and to state the reason for its failure to do so. 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 1323(1)-(2) (Supp.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1325(2)(D)(4) — 1 case
State v. Cloutier, 646 A.2d 358 (Me. 1994).
“requires the court to “order restitution where appropriate,” and to state the reason for its failure to do so. 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 1323(1)-(2) (Supp.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1325(4) — 7 cases
State of Maine v. Michaela C. Davenport, 2016 ME 69 (Me. 2016).
“See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325 (1983 & Supp.1987). In applying the statute as it then existed, we vacated a restitution sentence when the State had “made no showing that [the offender] had the means with which to pay restitution,” State v.”
State v. Basu, 875 A.2d 686 (Me. 2005).
“For a challenge of restitution to be successful, the issue should be raised at sentencing pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325 (1983 & Supp. 2004), in which the defendant must prove incapacity to pay by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State of Maine v. David Bradley, 2016 ME 70 (Me. 2016).
“See 17-A M.R.S. § 1325 (2015). The Legislature has authorized courts to order restitution to compensate victims for economic loss while helping to rehabilitate the offenders.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.