recognizing that the legislature expressly included certain factors in the reparations context and omitted them in the restitution context, and relying in part on that difference to conclude that section 611A.045, subdivision 1, provides an exclusive list of factors for the district court’s determination of the amount of restitution
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that the legislature expressly included certain factors in the reparations context and omitted them in the restitution context, and relying in part on that difference to conclude that section 611A.045, subdivision 1, provides an exclusive list of factors for the district court’s determination of the amount of restitution
- stating that in determining whether a statute is ambiguous, we consider whether a particular interpretation will “give effect-to all of [the 'statute’s] provisions”
- discussing the process for obtaining reparations and explaining that the reparation amount for which the victim is eligible decreases if the victim recoups economic losses from a collateral source, such as restitution paid by the offender
- stating the whole-statute canon directs the court to “construe a statute as a whole and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ANDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of the Chief Justice.