44th Hotel Associates v. Zurich Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• discussing BIA decisions from 1944, 1956, and 1965 in analyzing what makes indecent exposure a crime of moral turpitude
• “We have long held that indecent exposure is not inherently turpitudinous in the absence of lewd or lascivious intent.”
• explicitly distinguishing between non-morally turpitudinous “simple public nudity,” such as mooning oncoming traffic without lewd intent, and “indecent exposure with a lewd intent,” which is morally turpitudinous
• “We conclude that a person convicted of indecent exposure in violation of section 314(1) has committed a crime involving moral turpitude because a finding of lewdness is necessary for conviction.”
• explicitly invoking authority under Brand X to disagree with Nunez

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).