329 N.J. Super. 178 - State v. DeAngelis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[o]ut-of-state courts which have considered this question have uniformly held that a civil settlement or release does not absolve the defendant of criminal restitution.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Drake v. State · People v. Bell

2. “[C]ompensatory payments made pursuant to a restitution order 'can have correctional worth, regardless of whether the offender is required only to disgorge the fruits of his offense or to compensate persons for the injuries and losses suffered as a result of his crime.' " State v. DeAngelis , 329 N.J. Super. 178 , 186, 747 A.2d 289 (App. Div. 2000) (quoting In re Parole Application of Trantino , 89 N.J. 347 , 358, 446 A.2d 104 (1982) ). An order of restitution is designed "to strip a defendant of pecuniary gain from the crime where that gain is directly related to the crime itself and the defendant has the ability (though not necessarily the immediate means) to pay.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. RSI Bank v. Providence Mut. Fire Ins. Co. · 404 N.J. Super. 382 - Felicioni v. Admin. Office of Courts

3. “`We conclude that a release from liability obtained in a civil settlement cannot limit a criminal court's authority to order restitution equivalent to actual pecuniary damages. A contrary conclusion . . . would frustrate the rehabilitative purposes by permitting criminal defendants to avoid financial responsibility for their conduct.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Bell