Skip to main content

Loving v. State

Citations

  • 401 S.W.3d 642
  • 2013 WL 3196945
  • 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 950

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding exposure of defendant's penis to masturbate, indecency by exposure, was a separate and distinct act from indecency by contact, causing the victim to touch his genitals
  • explaining that when charged conduct involves multiple offenses in different statutory provisions, elements inquiry requires courts to compare elements of offenses under Blockburger same-elements test, using cognate-pleadings approach
  • concluding sexual assault of child by exposure not barred by sexual assault by contact
  • reasoning, \whether the Legislature intended for the separate statutory subsections in a single statute to constitute distinct offenses\ is the question
  • reasoning, \whether the Legislature intended for the separate statutory subsections in a single statute to constitute distinct offenses\ is the question
  • reasoning, \whether the Legislature intended for the separate statutory subsections in a single statute to constitute distinct offenses\ is the question

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hervey, Keller, Meyers, Womack, Johnson, Keasler, Cochran, Alcala, Price

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

75 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Loving v. State

14 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.