§Why CasetextPricing

M. (LUIS) v. S.C. (PEOPLE)

Petitioner’s Answer Brief on the Merits

15 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Baker

    126 Cal.App.4th 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 293 times
    Finding restitution appropriate even where victims' stolen property (cattle) was returned to the victims, as the cattle were no longer "the 'same' " since they had been bred and were older; the fact the victims sold the cattle did not affect the amount of restitution the court could award

  2. People v. Keichler

    129 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 289 times
    Affirming restitution order for traditional Hmong healing ceremonies and herbal medicines where defendant pleaded no contest to violating civil rights by uttering racial slurs during a fight

  3. In re Johnny M.

    100 Cal.App.4th 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 235 times
    Holding that restitution ordered paid to a school the defendant vandalized for labor costs, including benefits, of salaried employees who repaired the damage was appropriate where the school was deprived of the employees' work product during the time spent effecting repairs

  4. In re Brittany L.

    99 Cal.App.4th 1381 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 137 times
    Requiring the minor to make complete reparation to the victims is likely to " 'make an impression on the [minor]' " and is consistent with the goals of victim restitution

  5. In re Anthony M.

    156 Cal.App.4th 1010 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 112 times
    In Anthony M. the court ruled that where the medical provider was paid a certain amount by Medi-Cal and was precluded by law from seeking any further payment from the victim, the victim’s economic loss was the amount paid by Medi-Cal to the medical provider on the victim’s behalf because under some circumstances Medi-Cal.

  6. People v. Martinez

    36 Cal.4th 384 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 95 times
    Discussing Pen.Code, § 1202.4

  7. People v. Stanley

    54 Cal.4th 734 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 60 times
    Affirming a restitution order based on a written car repair estimate

  8. People v. Ortiz

    53 Cal.App.4th 791 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 94 times
    Holding that the constitutional basis of the restitution statute requires that "the court must decide the amount of the loss on grounds will withstand review for abuse of discretion"

  9. In re Alexander A.

    192 Cal.App.4th 847 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 56 times
    Approving garage's estimate for repairs to vandalized automobile

  10. In re Dina V.

    151 Cal.App.4th 486 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 42 times

    No. A115702. May 25, 2007. Appeal From the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. JW056479, Newton J. Lam, Judge. Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette and Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorneys General, Catherine A. Rivlin and Martin S. Kaye, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION SEPULVEDA, J. The minor, Dina V., admitted an allegation that she took

  11. Section 53069.3 - Removal of graffiti

    Cal. Gov. Code § 53069.3   Cited 3 times

    (a) A city, county, or city and county may enact an ordinance to provide for the use of city or county funds to remove graffiti or other inscribed material from publicly or privately owned real or personal property located within the city, county, or city and county and to replace or repair public or privately owned property within that city, county, or city and county that has been defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material that cannot be removed cost effectively. (b) The ordinance shall