MOBIL OIL CORP.

v.

MATZEN ET AL.; AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. V. WAECHTER ET AL.; CITIES SERVICE OIL CO. V. MATZEN ET AL.; SHELL OIL CO. V. MATZEN ET AL.; AND FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. MOBIL OIL CORP. ET AL

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• Rhodes v. State, 283 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1973)
  …ave said in plain, understandable language that these statutory words proscribe “an unlawful indulgence in lust; eager for sexual indulgence; open and public indecency” offensive to others. Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1971), cert. den. 406 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 2427, 32 L.Ed.2d 676, catalogues the earlier cases, although it was not decided until December 8, 1971, subsequent to the offense here. SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO OFFENDER We hold the language of Fla.Stat. § 847.011 F.S.A., as heretofore autho…
• Egal v. State, 469 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
  …ent to sustain his conviction. The term “lewd and lascivious” has been referred to as generally and usually involving “an unlawful indulgence in lust, eager for sexual indulgence.” Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675, 678 (Fla.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 2427, 32 L.Ed.2d 676 (1972); Payne v. State, 463 So. 2d 271 (Fla.2d DCA 1984). That term has also been said to connote “wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual design on the part of the perpetrator.” Chesebrough, 255 So. 2d at…
• Lanier v. State, 443 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
  …enumerated in Section 794.011(2) through (5). . There can be little doubt that the conduct of the defendant and S was lewd and lascivious as those terms are defined in Florida law. See Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 2427, 32 L.Ed.2d 676 (1972). Cf. Boles v. State, 158 Fla. 220, 27 So. 2d 293 (1946). .The State contends that this very question was decided adversely to Lanier in Dunson v. State, 194 So. 2d 68. We disagree. In Dunson, as in Matara v. St…