ejusdem generis doctrine in Michigan

1989People v Gould, 237 Mich 156, 159 ; 211 NW 346 (1926).

1938Laws 1915, § 15236) specifically mentioned certain weapons, and added “or other offensive and dangerous weapons or instruments concealed upon his person.” In sustaining the conviction and refusing to apply the doctrine of ejusdem generis, this court said: “We think it clearly appears that the legislature here intended to go further than the specific things that are mentioned in the statute, and meant to embrace all ‘other offensive and dangerous weapons or instruments concealed upon his person.’ It is manifest that there may be many offensive and dangerous weapons or instruments falling within

2021“When the genus comes first (‘all buildings, assembly houses, courthouses, jails, police stations, and government offices’) it is a stranger that arrives, so to speak, without an introduction saying it is limited; one is invited to take it at its broadest face value.” Id. at 205. 9 Accordingly, we must frame our 8 Lapeer Co Clerk v Lapeer Circuit Court, 469 Mich 146, 156 ; 665 NW2d 452 (2003). 9 Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner explain that the doctrine of ejusdem generis does not and should not apply when specific examples follow a general term.

2021“When the genus comes first (‘all buildings, assembly houses, courthouses, jails, police stations, and government offices’) it is a stranger that arrives, so to speak, without an introduction saying it is limited; one is invited to take it at its broadest face value.” Id. at 205. 9 Accordingly, we must frame our 8 Lapeer Co Clerk v Lapeer Circuit Court, 469 Mich 146, 156 ; 665 NW2d 452 (2003). 9 Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner explain that the doctrine of ejusdem generis does not and should not apply when specific examples follow a general term.

2020Merriam-Webster defines agritourism as “the practice of touring agricultural areas to see farms and often participate in farm activities.” 2 To the extent that this Court in Brown v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 273 Mich App 658, 664 ; 730 NW2d 518 (2007), stated that the doctrine of ejusdem generis does not apply when the general term precedes the more specific terms, this statement of the law was contrary to Huggett, 464 Mich at 718 , and Belanger, 432 Mich at 583 .

2007“Under the statutory construction doctrine known as ejusdem generis, where a general term follows a series of specific terms, the general term is interpreted ‘to include only things of the same kind, class, character, or nature as those specifically enumerated.’ ” Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661, 669 ; 685 NW2d 648 (2004), quoting Huggett v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 464 Mich 711, 718-719 ; 629 NW2d 915 (2001).

1998It is in fact this type of analysis, as the majority notes, that led the Court in People v Smith, 393 Mich 432, 435 ; 225 NW2d 165 (1975), to conclude that “other” triggered the ejusdem generis analysis.

1998It is in fact this type of analysis, as the majority notes, that led the Court in People v Smith, 393 Mich 432, 435 ; 225 NW2d 165 (1975), to conclude that “other” triggered the ejusdem generis analysis.

2023Generally, to decide whether the doctrine applies, “the operative inquiry is whether the context in which the general phrase appears indicates or implies that the drafters intended that the phrase be limited.” Benedict v Dep’t of Treasury, 236 Mich App 559, 566 ; 601 NW2d 151 (1999).

2023Generally, to decide whether the doctrine applies, “the operative inquiry is whether the context in which the general phrase appears indicates or implies that the drafters intended that the phrase be limited.” Benedict v Dep’t of Treasury, 236 Mich App 559, 566 ; 601 NW2d 151 (1999).

2020Merriam-Webster defines agritourism as “the practice of touring agricultural areas to see farms and often participate in farm activities.” 2 To the extent that this Court in Brown v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 273 Mich App 658, 664 ; 730 NW2d 518 (2007), stated that the doctrine of ejusdem generis does not apply when the general term precedes the more specific terms, this statement of the law was contrary to Huggett, 464 Mich at 718 , and Belanger, 432 Mich at 583 .

2018Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, courts will interpret a catch-all phrase “to include only those things of the same type as the preceding specific list.” Id.

2018Subsection 3.07.2 of the contract made GRBS “responsible for advising the District of the need for . . . all necessary repairs and replacements to the District’s facilities and equipment . . . .” The contract also stated that GRBS “may be required to purchase[, for cost,] any usable inventory of custodial supplies and maintenance/grounds supplies that may be on hand at the commencement of operations under an award Contract.” The last provision of any possible relevance required GRBS to “furnish all equipment: such as floor machines, vacuum systems and all other equipment.” The contract does no

2018Subsection 3.07.2 of the contract made GRBS “responsible for advising the District of the need for . . . all necessary repairs and replacements to the District’s facilities and equipment . . . .” The contract also stated that GRBS “may be required to purchase[, for cost,] any usable inventory of custodial supplies and maintenance/grounds supplies that may be on hand at the commencement of operations under an award Contract.” The last provision of any possible relevance required GRBS to “furnish all equipment: such as floor machines, vacuum systems and all other equipment.” The contract does no

2018As noted above and by the Court of Appeals, the doctrine of ejusdem generis provides that " 'the meaning of the general words will ordinarily be presumed to be and construed as restricted by the particular designation and as including only things of the same kind, class, character or nature as those specifically enumerated.' " Sands Appliance Servs. , 463 Mich at 242 , 615 N.W.2d 241 , quoting Brown , 406 Mich at 221 , 277 N.W.2d 155 .

2018As noted above and by the Court of Appeals, the doctrine of ejusdem generis provides that " 'the meaning of the general words will ordinarily be presumed to be and construed as restricted by the particular designation and as including only things of the same kind, class, character or nature as those specifically enumerated.' " Sands Appliance Servs. , 463 Mich at 242 , 615 N.W.2d 241 , quoting Brown , 406 Mich at 221 , 277 N.W.2d 155 .

2017Under the ejusdem generis doctrine, “when a general word or phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same class as those listed.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed).2 But as the trial court recognized, that doctrine (nor, for that matter, any other canon of statutory interpretation) does not apply where the language of the contract is clear, see, e.g., Utica State Savings Bank v Village of Oak Park, 279 Mich 568, 573 ; 273 NW 271 (1937), as is the case here.

2017Under the ejusdem generis doctrine, “when a general word or phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same class as those listed.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed).2 But as the trial court recognized, that doctrine (nor, for that matter, any other canon of statutory interpretation) does not apply where the language of the contract is clear, see, e.g., Utica State Savings Bank v Village of Oak Park, 279 Mich 568, 573 ; 273 NW 271 (1937), as is the case here.

2007“Under the statutory construction doctrine known as ejusdem generis, where a general term follows a series of specific terms, the general term is interpreted ‘to include only things of the same kind, class, character, or nature as those specifically enumerated.’ ” Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661, 669 ; 685 NW2d 648 (2004), quoting Huggett v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 464 Mich 711, 718-719 ; 629 NW2d 915 (2001).

2007“Under the statutory construction doctrine known as ejusdem generis, where a general term follows a series of specific terms, the general term is interpreted ‘to include only things of the same kind, class, character, or nature as those specifically enumerated.’ ” Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661, 669 ; 685 NW2d 648 (2004), quoting Huggett v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 464 Mich 711, 718-719 ; 629 NW2d 915 (2001).

2006These provisions clearly indicate that a purchase by the secured party is a disposition within the meaning of article 9. 11 Although there are no published Michigan cases specifically addressing the meaning of “disposition” in this context, in Silverberg, supra at 289 , the Colorado Court of Appeals persuasively concluded that “an examination of the default provisions of article 9 of the UCC leads us to conclude that ‘disposition’ upon default was intended to refer to a transfer of some portion of the creditor’s interest in the collateral and a transfer of the debtor’s interest.” (Emphasis in

2006These provisions clearly indicate that a purchase by the secured party is a disposition within the meaning of Article 9. [11] Although there are no published Michigan cases specifically addressing the meaning of "disposition" in this context, in Silverberg, supra at 289 , the Colorado Court of Appeals persuasively concluded that "an examination of the default provisions of Article 9 of the UCC leads us to conclude that `disposition' upon default was intended to refer to a transfer of some *835 portion of the creditor's interest in the collateral and a transfer of the debtor's interest." (Empha

2003NOTES [1] "Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, general terms are interpreted to include only items that are `of the same kind, class, character, or nature as those specifically enumerated.'" LeRoux v. Secretary of State, 465 Mich. 594, 624 , 640 N.W.2d 849 (2002) (citation omitted). [2] Justice Weaver, in her dissent, has discussed common-law premises-liability doctrines, in particular the "open and obvious" doctrine, and feels this case turns on the application of them to these facts.

2003NOTES [1] "Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, general terms are interpreted to include only items that are `of the same kind, class, character, or nature as those specifically enumerated.'" LeRoux v. Secretary of State, 465 Mich. 594, 624 , 640 N.W.2d 849 (2002) (citation omitted). [2] Justice Weaver, in her dissent, has discussed common-law premises-liability doctrines, in particular the "open and obvious" doctrine, and feels this case turns on the application of them to these facts.

1999The act “provided] for the imposition and collection of a specific tax on the privilege of ownership of intangible personal property.” Rosenbalm v Dep’t of Treasury, 164 Mich App 99, 103 ; 416 NW2d 343 (1987).

1999The act “provided] for the imposition and collection of a specific tax on the privilege of ownership of intangible personal property.” Rosenbalm v Dep’t of Treasury, 164 Mich App 99, 103 ; 416 NW2d 343 (1987).

1999MCL 766.13; MSA 28.913; MCR 6.110(E).” Northey, supra at 574 .

1998Eddy & Sons v. Tierney, 276 Mich. 333 , 267 N.W. 852 (1936), involved a statute that used the terms "building, structure, or premises." The Court held that the three terms were used disjunctively, and therefore, the doctrine of ejusdem generis should not apply.

1998Eddy & Sons v. Tierney, 276 Mich. 333 , 267 N.W. 852 (1936), involved a statute that used the terms "building, structure, or premises." The Court held that the three terms were used disjunctively, and therefore, the doctrine of ejusdem generis should not apply.

1998A good example of such a situation is presented in In re Forfeiture of $5,264, 432 Mich. 242 , 439 N.W.2d 246 (1989), cited by the dissent.

1998A good example of such a situation is presented in In re Forfeiture of $5,264, 432 Mich. 242 , 439 N.W.2d 246 (1989), cited by the dissent.

1998As stated in In re Mosby, 360 Mich. 186, 192 , 103 N.W.2d 462 (1960): The rule of ejusdem generis is not to be invoked in every case where general words follow (or possibly precede) specific words.

1998As stated in In re Mosby, 360 Mich. 186, 192 , 103 N.W.2d 462 (1960): The rule of ejusdem generis is not to be invoked in every case where general words follow (or possibly precede) specific words.

1996People v Berry, 198 Mich App 723, 724 ; 499 NW2d 458 (1993); Attorney General v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 168 Mich App 372, 380-381 ; 424 NW2d 54 (1988). “[T]he phrase ‘designed for vehicular travel’ [in MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102)] can only be reasonably interpreted to mean ‘intended for vehicular travel.’ ” Mason, supra at 137 .

1996People v Berry, 198 Mich App 723, 724 ; 499 NW2d 458 (1993); Attorney General v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 168 Mich App 372, 380-381 ; 424 NW2d 54 (1988). “[T]he phrase ‘designed for vehicular travel’ [in MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102)] can only be reasonably interpreted to mean ‘intended for vehicular travel.’ ” Mason, supra at 137 .

1996People v Berry, 198 Mich App 723, 724 ; 499 NW2d 458 (1993); Attorney General v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 168 Mich App 372, 380-381 ; 424 NW2d 54 (1988). “[T]he phrase ‘designed for vehicular travel’ [in MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102)] can only be reasonably interpreted to mean ‘intended for vehicular travel.’ ” Mason, supra at 137 .

1996People v Berry, 198 Mich App 723, 724 ; 499 NW2d 458 (1993); Attorney General v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 168 Mich App 372, 380-381 ; 424 NW2d 54 (1988). “[T]he phrase ‘designed for vehicular travel’ [in MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102)] can only be reasonably interpreted to mean ‘intended for vehicular travel.’ ” Mason, supra at 137 .

1996People v Berry, 198 Mich App 723, 724 ; 499 NW2d 458 (1993); Attorney General v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 168 Mich App 372, 380-381 ; 424 NW2d 54 (1988). “[T]he phrase ‘designed for vehicular travel’ [in MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102)] can only be reasonably interpreted to mean ‘intended for vehicular travel.’ ” Mason, supra at 137 .

1993Id. at 663-664 .

1991Southeastern Oakland Co Incinerator Authority v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 176 Mich App 434, 441 ; 440 NW2d 649 (1989).

1991Southeastern Oakland Co Incinerator Authority v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 176 Mich App 434, 441 ; 440 NW2d 649 (1989).

1989In re Forfeiture of 45649 Maben Road, 173 Mich App 764 ; 434 NW2d 238 (1988). [9] Shaw, Errors in English and Ways to Correct Them (New York: Harper & Row, 3d ed, 1986), pp 227-229: A participle is a verbal adjective, a word having the function of both verb and adjective.

1989In re Forfeiture of 45649 Maben Road, 173 Mich App 764 ; 434 NW2d 238 (1988). [9] Shaw, Errors in English and Ways to Correct Them (New York: Harper & Row, 3d ed, 1986), pp 227-229: A participle is a verbal adjective, a word having the function of both verb and adjective.