State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Superior Court

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “sexual contact” in the context of a public indecency statute would not extend to “normal bodily functions in a public restroom” because the fondling or manipulating must be “of a sexual nature”
• holding that “sexual contact” required a touching “of a sexual nature”
• suggesting former sexual-contact statute refers to conduct “of a sexual nature”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).