People v. Joshua M.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the California courts first added this “specific intent element” to the state’s loitering statute, and that “[t]he Legislature included this intent element when it redrafted [the loitering statute] as present section 647, subdivision (h)”
• noting that the California courts first added this “specific intent element” to the state’s loitering statute in 1961, and that “[t]he Legislature included this intent element when it redrafted [the loitering statute] as present section 647, subdivision (h)”
• noting that the California courts first added this “spe- cific intent element” to the state’s loitering statute in 1961, and that “[t]he Legislature included this intent element when it redrafted [the loitering statute] as present section 647, sub- division (h)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).