Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Saibold, 34 So. 2d 909.

30 citing documents.

In the Matter of Two (2) Canines Seized from Susan Graham, Rayville, Louisiana La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
State v. Breedlove 213 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
(1948), the Louisiana supreme court stated that lewd or lascivious behavior “connotes actions or gestures of the lustful and lecherous nature.” Id.
State of Louisiana v. M. L. Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 909, 911 (La.1948), the Louisiana Supreme Court, in concluding that the meaning of the terms was sufficiently clear when used together, stated that lewd or lascivious behavior “connotes actions or gestures of a lustful and lecherous nature.” Furthermore, “to settle any possible doubt,” that court directed at
State of Louisiana v. Todd Andrew Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 909 (1948), in stating: [T]he Louisiana Supreme Court, in concluding that the meaning of the terms was sufficiently clear when used together, stated that lewd or lascivious behavior “connotes actions or gestures of the lustful and lecherous nature.” Furthermore, “to
State v. Jones 32 So. 3d 1084 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
(1948), in stating: [T]he Louisiana Supreme Court, in concluding that the meaning of the terms was sufficiently clear when used together, stated that lewd or lascivious behavior “connotes actions or gestures of the lustful and lecherous nature.” Furthermore, “to settle any possible doubt,” that court di
State v. Robinson 975 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
(1948); State v. Rideaux, 05-446 (La.App.
State v. Robinson 975 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
(1948); State v. Rideaux, 05-446 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Theddeus Rideaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
12 So.2d 909 (1948), in stating: [T]he Louisiana Supreme Court, in concluding that the meaning of the terms was sufficiently clear when used together, stated that lewd or lascivious behavior “connotes actions or gestures of the lustful and lecherous nature.” Furthermore, “to settle any possi
State v. Rideaux 916 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
(1948), in stating: [T]he Louisiana Supreme Court, in concluding that the meaning of the terms was sufficiently clear when used together, stated that lewd or lascivious behavior "connotes actions or gestures of the lustful and lecherous nature."
State v. Gaspard 841 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
the Louisiana Supreme Court, in concluding that the meaning of the terms was sufficiently clear when used together, stated that lewd or lascivious behavior "connotes actions or gestures of a lustful and lecherous nature."
State v. Miller 663 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
415, (1948)] described the argument made here as `absurd.'
State v. Free 643 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
611 , (1954), , (1948), LSA-R.S.
State v. Hillman 613 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
(1948), rehearing denied, "when the term `lewd' is associated with the word `lascivious' it connotes actions or gestures of a lustful and lecherous nature."
State v. Louviere 602 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
the Louisiana Supreme Court, in concluding that the meaning of the terms was sufficiently clear when used together, stated that lewd or lascivious behavior "connotes actions or gestures of a lustful and lecherous nature."
State v. Miles 557 So. 2d 1375 La. 1990
State v. Shows 508 So. 2d 991 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Zihlavsky 505 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
(1948), evidence that Saibold had lived in the city for many years, and had two sons, one of whom was married and the other in service, was held sufficient to prove that he was a person over seventeen years of age in a prosecution for indecent behavior with a juvenile.
State v. Walters 440 So. 2d 115 La. 1983
State v. Holstead 354 So. 2d 493 La. 1977
611 , (1954), , (1948), La.R.S.
State v. Jenkins 338 So. 2d 276 La. 1976
(1948); State v. Robertson, 241 La.
State v. Comeaux 319 So. 2d 897 La. 1975
472 , (1948); , (1948); State v. Varnado, 208 La.
State v. Heck 307 So. 2d 332 La. 1975
472 , (1948); , (1948); State v. Varnado, 208 La.
State v. Cryer 263 So. 2d 895 La. 1972
451 , (1944); , (1948), and State v. Dozier, 258 La.
State v. Richard 158 So. 2d 828 La. 1963
State v. Cade 153 So. 2d 382 La. 1963
State v. Hertzog 131 So. 2d 788 La. 1961
$ $ *» Later,„ , , 911 this court again gave recognition to the discussed rule; and we held that while the word “lewd”, if used alone, is of a very broad scope it becomes restricted and definite in its meaning when employed in association with the word “lascivious” and “connotes actions or gestures of a lustful and lech
State v. Cole 125 So. 2d 10 La. 1960
State v. Christine 118 So. 2d 403 La. 1960
ad; vicious; worthless; base’ but it is also defined to be ‘lustful; libidinous ; lascivious; unchaste * * *.’ And the word ‘lascivious’ is defined as ‘wanton; lewd; lustful * * * tending to produce voluptuous or lewd emotions.’ Hence, it is seen that when the term ‘lewd’ is associated with the word ‘lascivious’ it connotes actions or gestures of a lustful and lecherous nature.” , .
State v. Milford 73 So. 2d 778 La. 1954
poses the question of “ * * * whether or not the act upon which this prosecution is based, is sufficient in its terms to notify all who may fall under its provisions as to what acts constitute a violation of this law, or is the language of the act itself too general to inform one of the specific acts which are intended to be reprobated.” , and in State v. Prejean, 216 La.
State v. Le Blanc 34 So. 2d 905 La. 1948
This same contention is made in the casé , , and we find the contention has no merit for the reasons stated therein.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by