expressio unius est exclusio alterius doctrine in North Carolina

2026“Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, when a statute lists the situations to which it applies, it implies the exclusion of situations not contained in the list.” Evans v. Diaz, 333 N.C. 774, 779-80 (1993) (citations omitted).

2023See, e.g., Evans v. Diaz, 333 N.C. 774 , 779- 80, 430 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1993) (“Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, when a statute lists the situations to which it applies, it implies the exclusion of situations not contained in the list.” (citations omitted)).

2024See Campbell v. First Baptist Church of Durham, 298 N.C. 476, 482 (1979) (citing Walla Walla City v. Walla Walla Water Co., 172 U.S. 1, 22 (1898)) (acknowledging that under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the mention of specific exceptions implies the exclusion of others).

2022See Campbell v. First Baptist Church, 298 N.C. 476, 482 (1979) (“Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the mention of specific exceptions implies the exclusion of others.”).

2018Based on this reasoning and interpretation of section 50-19.1, it appears this Court was guided by the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius , which, in the context of statutory construction, "provides that the mention of such specific exceptions implies the exclusion of others." Morrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 319 N.C. 298 , 303, 354 S.E.2d 495 , 498 (1987) (citations omitted).

2018Based on this reasoning and interpretation of section 50-19.1, it appears this Court was guided by the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius , which, in the context of statutory construction, "provides that the mention of such specific exceptions implies the exclusion of others." Morrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 319 N.C. 298 , 303, 354 S.E.2d 495 , 498 (1987) (citations omitted).

2018"Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius , when a statute lists the situations to which it applies, it implies the exclusion of situations not contained in the list." Evans v. Diaz , 333 N.C. 774 , 779-80, 430 S.E.2d 244 , 247 (1993) (citing Alberti v. Manufactured Homes, Inc. , 329 N.C. 727 , 732, 407 S.E.2d 819 , 822 (1991) ).

2018"Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius , when a statute lists the situations to which it applies, it implies the exclusion of situations not contained in the list." Evans v. Diaz , 333 N.C. 774 , 779-80, 430 S.E.2d 244 , 247 (1993) (citing Alberti v. Manufactured Homes, Inc. , 329 N.C. 727 , 732, 407 S.E.2d 819 , 822 (1991) ).

2021Stat. 1A-1, Rule 15(c) (2019) (“A claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claim in the original pleading was interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading.”); see also Baker v. Martin, 330 N.C. 331, 337 , 410 S.E.2d 887, 891 (1991) (When interpreting statutes, “under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the expression of specific disqualifications implies the exclusion of any other disqualific

2021Stat. 1A-1, Rule 15(c) (2019) (“A claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claim in the original pleading was interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading.”); see also Baker v. Martin, 330 N.C. 331, 337 , 410 S.E.2d 887, 891 (1991) (When interpreting statutes, “under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the expression of specific disqualifications implies the exclusion of any other disqualific

2022Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 42(b)(4). ¶ 38 “Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, when a statute lists the situations to which it applies, it implies the exclusion of situations not contained in the list.” Cooper v. Berger, 371 N.C. 799, 810 , 822 S.E.2d 286, 296 (2018) (citation omitted).

2022Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 42(b)(4). ¶ 38 “Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, when a statute lists the situations to which it applies, it implies the exclusion of situations not contained in the list.” Cooper v. Berger, 371 N.C. 799, 810 , 822 S.E.2d 286, 296 (2018) (citation omitted).

2024See Campbell v. First Baptist Church of Durham, 298 N.C. 476, 482 (1979) (citing Walla Walla City v. Walla Walla Water Co., 172 U.S. 1, 22 (1898)) (acknowledging that under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the mention of specific exceptions implies the exclusion of others).

1987Campbell v. Church, 298 N.C. 476, 482 , 259 S.E.2d 558, 563 (1979); Walla Walla v. *499 Walla Walla Water Co., 172 U.S. 1 , 19 S.Ct. 77 , 43 L.Ed. 341 (1898).

2020Comparison of the express language used in N.C.G.S. § 15A-1368.4 subsection (e)(10) with the express language of subsection (b1), convincingly indicates that the General Assembly intended to limit “searches” as conditions of PRS pursuant N.C.G.S. § 15A-1368.4(e)(10) to searches of the “person.” “‘Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, when a statute lists the situations to which it applies, it implies the exclusion of situations not contained in the list.’” In re Investigation of Death of Eric Miller, 357 N.C. 316, 325 , 584 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2003) (footnote omitted) (cita

2020Comparison of the express language used in N.C.G.S. § 15A-1368.4 subsection (e)(10) with the express language of subsection (b1), convincingly indicates that the General Assembly intended to limit “searches” as conditions of PRS pursuant N.C.G.S. § 15A-1368.4(e)(10) to searches of the “person.” “‘Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, when a statute lists the situations to which it applies, it implies the exclusion of situations not contained in the list.’” In re Investigation of Death of Eric Miller, 357 N.C. 316, 325 , 584 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2003) (footnote omitted) (cita

2020This canon applies unless “‘a literal interpretation of the language of a statute will lead to absurd results, or contravene the manifest purpose of the Legislature, as otherwise expressed[.]’” Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., v. Southwestern Motors, Inc., 296 N.C. 357, 361 , 250 S.E.2d 250, 253 (1979) (citation omitted).

2020This canon applies unless “‘a literal interpretation of the language of a statute will lead to absurd results, or contravene the manifest purpose of the Legislature, as otherwise expressed[.]’” Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., v. Southwestern Motors, Inc., 296 N.C. 357, 361 , 250 S.E.2d 250, 253 (1979) (citation omitted).

2014However, “the canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply to every statutory listing or grouping; it has force only when the items expressed are members of an ‘associated group or series,’ justifying the inference that items not mentioned were excluded by deliberate choice, not inadvertence.” Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, 168 , 123 S. Ct. 748, 760 , 154 L.

2014However, “the canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply to every statutory listing or grouping; it has force only when the items expressed are members of an ‘associated group or series,’ justifying the inference that items not mentioned were excluded by deliberate choice, not inadvertence.” Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, 168 , 123 S. Ct. 748, 760 , 154 L.

2013App. _, _, 718 S.E.2d 174, 181 (2011) (explaining that “the determination as to whether SBM is required is to be based upon the relevant statutory language,” rather than factors not explicitly provided for in the statute); see also Evans v. Diaz, 333 N.C. 774, 779-80 , 430 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1993) (“Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, when a statute fists the situations to which it applies, it implies the exclusion of situations not contained in the fist.”).

2011Martin v. Preston, 325 N.C. 438, 448-49 , 385 S.E.2d 473, 478 (1989) (citations omitted). “[U]nder the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the expression of specific disqualifications implies the exclusion of any other disqualifications.” This doctrine is a commonly used tool of statutory construction, but . . . we have found no North Carolina case in which this doctrine has been used to interpret our Constitution.

2011Martin v. Preston, 325 N.C. 438, 448-49 , 385 S.E.2d 473, 478 (1989) (citations omitted). “[U]nder the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the expression of specific disqualifications implies the exclusion of any other disqualifications.” This doctrine is a commonly used tool of statutory construction, but . . . we have found no North Carolina case in which this doctrine has been used to interpret our Constitution.

1991County of Fresno v. State of California, 228 Cal.App.3d 875 , 268 Cal.Rptr. 266 , 270 (5 Dist.1990) (citations omitted), judgment aff'd, 53 Cal.3d 482 , 808 P.2d 235 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 92 (1991); see also, Eberle v. Nielson, 78 Idaho 572, 578 , 306 P.2d 1083, 1086 (1957) ("the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius has no application to the provisions of our State Constitution"); County Board of Education v. Taxpayers and Citizens, 276 Ala. 472, 478 , 163 So.2d 629, 634 (1964) ("The power of the legislature except as limited by constitutional provisions is as plenary as that of the British

1991County of Fresno v. State of California, 228 Cal.App.3d 875 , 268 Cal.Rptr. 266 , 270 (5 Dist.1990) (citations omitted), judgment aff'd, 53 Cal.3d 482 , 808 P.2d 235 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 92 (1991); see also, Eberle v. Nielson, 78 Idaho 572, 578 , 306 P.2d 1083, 1086 (1957) ("the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius has no application to the provisions of our State Constitution"); County Board of Education v. Taxpayers and Citizens, 276 Ala. 472, 478 , 163 So.2d 629, 634 (1964) ("The power of the legislature except as limited by constitutional provisions is as plenary as that of the British