State v. Enstone

Supreme Court of Washington · Decided 1999-04-15

Cited by 104 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

Alexander, J. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering the defendant, Douglas Enstone, to pay restitution for a crime victim’s actual medical expenses absent a finding that the victim’s injuries, for which the expenses were incurred, were foreseeable. We conclude that a finding of foreseeability is not a necessary element for a restitution order and, consequently, affirm the decision of…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.