Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Dostgreen2 sentences2026Similarly, here, the legislature did not expressly define "simulated lewd exhibition of genitals." Therefore, I believe the Dost test, modified to incorporate the statutory definition of simulated, should be applied to determine whether the morphed images constitute "simulated lewd exhibition of genitals" ( Dost , 636 F Supp at 832; Penal Law §§ 263.00 [3], [6]). 2026Similarly, here, the legislature did not expressly define "simulated lewd exhibition of genitals." Therefore, I believe the Dost test, modified to incorporate the statutory definition of simulated, should be applied to determine whether the morphed images constitute "simulated lewd exhibition of genitals" ( Dost , 636 F Supp at 832; Penal Law §§ 263.00 [3], [6]). | 4 | 7 |
McIntosh v. Wrattengreen2 sentences2024To the extent that plaintiff argues that being unclothed satisfies the Dost test and Penal Law § 263.00(3), while our jurisprudence does not require that genitalia be exposed to constitute a lewd exhibition, cases relied upon by plaintiff lack sufficient description of the subject photographs and thus are not instructive as to whether being unclothed, without more, informs lewdness or an exhibition of genitalia ( see People v Pendell, 164 AD3d 1063 , 1065 [3d Dept 2018], affd 33 NY3d 972 [2019]; People v Wheeler, 99 AD3d 1168 , 1172 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 989 [2012]; People v McInt 2024To the extent that plaintiff argues that being unclothed satisfies the Dost test and Penal Law § 263.00(3), while our jurisprudence does not require that genitalia be exposed to constitute a lewd exhibition, cases relied upon by plaintiff lack sufficient description of the subject photographs and thus are not instructive as to whether being unclothed, without more, informs lewdness or an exhibition of genitalia ( see People v Pendell, 164 AD3d 1063 , 1065 [3d Dept 2018], affd 33 NY3d 972 [2019]; People v Wheeler, 99 AD3d 1168 , 1172 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 989 [2012]; People v McInt | 3 | 3 |
People v. Gibeaultgreen2 sentences2024In Figueroa v Mazza ( 825 F3d 89, 101 [2d Cir 2016]), the Second Circuit acknowledges that the function of the Dost test is to determine the lewdness of an exhibition of genitalia ([emphasis added]; see also People v Gibeault , 5 AD3d 952, 954 [3d Dept 2004] [holding that a jury's determination that a video of exposed genitalia was "lewd" was against the weight of the evidence where setting, attire, and poses of the performance were not sexually suggestive or intended to elicit a sexual response]). 2024In Figueroa v Mazza ( 825 F3d 89, 101 [2d Cir 2016]), the Second Circuit acknowledges that the function of the Dost test is to determine the lewdness of an exhibition of genitalia ([emphasis added]; see also People v Gibeault , 5 AD3d 952, 954 [3d Dept 2004] [holding that a jury's determination that a video of exposed genitalia was "lewd" was against the weight of the evidence where setting, attire, and poses of the performance were not sexually suggestive or intended to elicit a sexual response]). | 3 | 3 |
Figueroa v. Mazzagreen2 sentences2024In Figueroa v Mazza ( 825 F3d 89, 101 [2d Cir 2016]), the Second Circuit acknowledges that the function of the Dost test is to determine the lewdness of an exhibition of genitalia ([emphasis added]; see also People v Gibeault , 5 AD3d 952, 954 [3d Dept 2004] [holding that a jury's determination that a video of exposed genitalia was "lewd" was against the weight of the evidence where setting, attire, and poses of the performance were not sexually suggestive or intended to elicit a sexual response]). 2024In Figueroa v Mazza ( 825 F3d 89, 101 [2d Cir 2016]), the Second Circuit acknowledges that the function of the Dost test is to determine the lewdness of an exhibition of genitalia ([emphasis added]; see also People v Gibeault , 5 AD3d 952, 954 [3d Dept 2004] [holding that a jury's determination that a video of exposed genitalia was "lewd" was against the weight of the evidence where setting, attire, and poses of the performance were not sexually suggestive or intended to elicit a sexual response]). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Villardgreen2 sentences2001As one court has put it in a context similar to that at bar, the Dost factors also “serve to distinguish between the innocent family photo or artistic depiction of a nude child and the victimization of that child in the creation of child pornography.” (United States v Villard, 700 F Supp 803, 812 [D NJ 1988], affd 885 F2d 117 [3d Cir 1989] .) 12 The Dost factors are: (1) whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitals; (2) whether the setting, of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity; (3) wheth 2001As one court has put it in a context similar to that at bar, the Dost factors also “serve to distinguish between the innocent family photo or artistic depiction of a nude child and the victimization of that child in the creation of child pornography.” (United States v Villard, 700 F Supp 803, 812 [D NJ 1988], affd 885 F2d 117 [3d Cir 1989] .) 12 The Dost factors are: (1) whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitals; (2) whether the setting, of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity; (3) wheth | 2 | 2 |
New York v. Ferbergreen2 sentences2001(People v Lamborn, 185 Ill 2d 585, 708 NE2d 350 [1999]; State v Saulsbury, 243 Neb 227, 498 NW2d 338 [1993]; People v Kongs, 30 Cal App 4th 1741, 37 Cal Rptr 2d 327 [Ct App Cal, 2d Dist, Div 2 1994]; Alexander v State, 906 SW2d 107 [Ct App Tex 1995]; Foster v Commonwealth, 1989 WL 641956 [Va Ct App, Nov. 21, 1989, Benton, J.].) 13 Under the Dost test, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, the trier of fact need not find that all of the six factors are present in order to conclude that there was a “lewd exhibition of the genitals.” 14 That determination must be made on a case-by-case ba 2001(People v Lamborn, 185 Ill 2d 585, 708 NE2d 350 [1999]; State v Saulsbury, 243 Neb 227, 498 NW2d 338 [1993]; People v Kongs, 30 Cal App 4th 1741, 37 Cal Rptr 2d 327 [Ct App Cal, 2d Dist, Div 2 1994]; Alexander v State, 906 SW2d 107 [Ct App Tex 1995]; Foster v Commonwealth, 1989 WL 641956 [Va Ct App, Nov. 21, 1989, Benton, J.].) 13 Under the Dost test, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, the trier of fact need not find that all of the six factors are present in order to conclude that there was a “lewd exhibition of the genitals.” 14 That determination must be made on a case-by-case ba | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hornergreen2 sentences2026In applying the modified Dost test to the facts of this case, defendant's conduct is prohibited under Penal Law § 263.15 (Penal Law §§ 263.00 [3], [6]; Dost , 636 F Supp at 832; Horner , 300 AD2d at 843). 2026In applying the modified Dost test to the facts of this case, defendant's conduct is prohibited under Penal Law § 263.15 (Penal Law §§ 263.00 [3], [6]; Dost , 636 F Supp at 832 ; Horner , 300 AD2d at 843 ). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Wheeler
green
2 sentences2024To the extent that plaintiff argues that being unclothed satisfies the Dost test and Penal Law § 263.00(3), while our jurisprudence does not require that genitalia be exposed to constitute a lewd exhibition, cases relied upon by plaintiff lack sufficient description of the subject photographs and thus are not instructive as to whether being unclothed, without more, informs lewdness or an exhibition of genitalia ( see People v Pendell, 164 AD3d 1063 , 1065 [3d Dept 2018], affd 33 NY3d 972 [2019]; People v Wheeler, 99 AD3d 1168 , 1172 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 989 [2012]; People v McInt 2024To the extent that plaintiff argues that being unclothed satisfies the Dost test and Penal Law § 263.00(3), while our jurisprudence does not require that genitalia be exposed to constitute a lewd exhibition, cases relied upon by plaintiff lack sufficient description of the subject photographs and thus are not instructive as to whether being unclothed, without more, informs lewdness or an exhibition of genitalia ( see People v Pendell, 164 AD3d 1063 , 1065 [3d Dept 2018], affd 33 NY3d 972 [2019]; People v Wheeler, 99 AD3d 1168 , 1172 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 989 [2012]; People v McInt | 3 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Darryl M.
green
2 sentences2002Thus, for example, an erect penis discernible through tight clothing could, under appropriate circumstances, constitute a lewd display of the genitals (see People v Darryl M., 123 Misc 2d 723, 726 ). 2002Thus, for example, an erect penis discernible through tight clothing could, under appropriate circumstances, constitute a lewd display of the genitals (see People v Darryl M., 123 Misc 2d 723, 726 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Hebel
green
2 sentences2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Lamborn
green
2 sentences2001(People v Lamborn, 185 Ill 2d 585, 708 NE2d 350 [1999]; State v Saulsbury, 243 Neb 227, 498 NW2d 338 [1993]; People v Kongs, 30 Cal App 4th 1741, 37 Cal Rptr 2d 327 [Ct App Cal, 2d Dist, Div 2 1994]; Alexander v State, 906 SW2d 107 [Ct App Tex 1995]; Foster v Commonwealth, 1989 WL 641956 [Va Ct App, Nov. 21, 1989, Benton, J.].) 13 Under the Dost test, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, the trier of fact need not find that all of the six factors are present in order to conclude that there was a “lewd exhibition of the genitals.” 14 That determination must be made on a case-by-case ba 2001(People v Lamborn, 185 Ill 2d 585, 708 NE2d 350 [1999]; State v Saulsbury, 243 Neb 227, 498 NW2d 338 [1993]; People v Kongs, 30 Cal App 4th 1741, 37 Cal Rptr 2d 327 [Ct App Cal, 2d Dist, Div 2 1994]; Alexander v State, 906 SW2d 107 [Ct App Tex 1995]; Foster v Commonwealth, 1989 WL 641956 [Va Ct App, Nov. 21, 1989, Benton, J.].) 13 Under the Dost test, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, the trier of fact need not find that all of the six factors are present in order to conclude that there was a “lewd exhibition of the genitals.” 14 That determination must be made on a case-by-case ba | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Stephen A. Knox
green
2 sentences2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Amirault
green
2 sentences2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Dauray
green
2 sentences2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Matthew Carroll, United States v. Robert Randall Reinhart
green
2 sentences2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Rhoden v. Morgan
green
2 sentences2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Saulsbury
green
2 sentences2001(People v Lamborn, 185 Ill 2d 585, 708 NE2d 350 [1999]; State v Saulsbury, 243 Neb 227, 498 NW2d 338 [1993]; People v Kongs, 30 Cal App 4th 1741, 37 Cal Rptr 2d 327 [Ct App Cal, 2d Dist, Div 2 1994]; Alexander v State, 906 SW2d 107 [Ct App Tex 1995]; Foster v Commonwealth, 1989 WL 641956 [Va Ct App, Nov. 21, 1989, Benton, J.].) 13 Under the Dost test, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, the trier of fact need not find that all of the six factors are present in order to conclude that there was a “lewd exhibition of the genitals.” 14 That determination must be made on a case-by-case ba 2001(People v Lamborn, 185 Ill 2d 585, 708 NE2d 350 [1999]; State v Saulsbury, 243 Neb 227, 498 NW2d 338 [1993]; People v Kongs, 30 Cal App 4th 1741, 37 Cal Rptr 2d 327 [Ct App Cal, 2d Dist, Div 2 1994]; Alexander v State, 906 SW2d 107 [Ct App Tex 1995]; Foster v Commonwealth, 1989 WL 641956 [Va Ct App, Nov. 21, 1989, Benton, J.].) 13 Under the Dost test, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, the trier of fact need not find that all of the six factors are present in order to conclude that there was a “lewd exhibition of the genitals.” 14 That determination must be made on a case-by-case ba | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Dow Chemical Co. v. Alfaro
green
2 sentences2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Knox v. United States
green
2 sentences2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Alexander v. State
green
2 sentences2001(People v Lamborn, 185 Ill 2d 585, 708 NE2d 350 [1999]; State v Saulsbury, 243 Neb 227, 498 NW2d 338 [1993]; People v Kongs, 30 Cal App 4th 1741, 37 Cal Rptr 2d 327 [Ct App Cal, 2d Dist, Div 2 1994]; Alexander v State, 906 SW2d 107 [Ct App Tex 1995]; Foster v Commonwealth, 1989 WL 641956 [Va Ct App, Nov. 21, 1989, Benton, J.].) 13 Under the Dost test, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, the trier of fact need not find that all of the six factors are present in order to conclude that there was a “lewd exhibition of the genitals.” 14 That determination must be made on a case-by-case ba 2001(People v Lamborn, 185 Ill 2d 585, 708 NE2d 350 [1999]; State v Saulsbury, 243 Neb 227, 498 NW2d 338 [1993]; People v Kongs, 30 Cal App 4th 1741, 37 Cal Rptr 2d 327 [Ct App Cal, 2d Dist, Div 2 1994]; Alexander v State, 906 SW2d 107 [Ct App Tex 1995]; Foster v Commonwealth, 1989 WL 641956 [Va Ct App, Nov. 21, 1989, Benton, J.].) 13 Under the Dost test, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, the trier of fact need not find that all of the six factors are present in order to conclude that there was a “lewd exhibition of the genitals.” 14 That determination must be made on a case-by-case ba | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Crosby
green
2 sentences2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 2001For other applications of the Dost test, see United States v Carroll ( 190 F3d 290 [5th Cir 1999]), United States v Amirault ( 173 F3d 28 [1st Cir 1999]), United States v Knox ( 32 F3d 733 [3d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1109 ), United States v Wolf (890 F2d 241 [10th Cir 1989]), United States v Arvin (900 F2d 1385 [9th Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 1024 ), United States v Rubio (834 F2d 442 [5th Cir 1987]), United States v Crosby ( 106 F Supp 2d 53 [D Me 2000]), United States v Dauray ( 76 F Supp 2d 191 [D Conn 1999]), Rhoden v Morgan ( 863 F Supp 612 [MD Tenn 1994]), and People v Hebel (17 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.