ejusdem generis rule in New Jersey

1995Denbo v. Moorestown Township, 23 N.J. 476, 481-82 , 129 A.2d 710 (1957).

1995Denbo v. Moorestown Township, 23 N.J. 476, 481-82 , 129 A.2d 710 (1957).

2019The legislative language throughout the statute and the evils sought to be eliminated point to an intent to protect the consumer in the context of the ordinary meaning of that term in the market place. [Ibid.] In addition, under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, 11 we found that real estate was "wholly foreign to any of the listed examples specifically referred to in the definition." Id. at 379 .

2003Neveroski also excluded the broker because of its interpretation of Section 8-l(c)’s concluding phrase, “or anything offered, directly or indirectly to the public for sale.” Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the court decided that that phrase did not include real estate. 141 N.J.Super. at 378 , 358 A.2d 473 .

1994Applying the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction that limits the meaning of general statutory words to include only those objects enumerated by preceding specific words, the Tax Court construed the phrase “mistakes in tax assessments” to refer only to “mistakes like typographical errors and errors in transposing.” Id. at 535 .

1994Applying the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction that limits the meaning of general statutory words to include only those objects enumerated by preceding specific words, the Tax Court construed the phrase "mistakes in tax assessments" to refer only to "mistakes like typographical errors and errors in transposing." Id. at 535 .

2003We begin our analysis by noting that the doctrine “is not absolute but serves as a helpful guide in ascertaining legislative meaning____” Salomon v. Jersey City, 12 N.J. 379, 389 , 97 A.2d 405 (1953).

2003We begin our analysis by noting that the doctrine “is not absolute but serves as a helpful guide in ascertaining legislative meaning____” Salomon v. Jersey City, 12 N.J. 379, 389 , 97 A.2d 405 (1953).

2001Thus, “[m]any modern commentators have been critical of the ejusdem generis rule because it creates a manifest bias toward the strict construction of statutes.” Hovbilt, Inc. v. Township of Howell, 263 N.J.Super. 567, 572 , 623 A.2d 770 (App.Div.1993), aff'd, 138 N.J. 598 , 651 A.2d 77 (1994); 2A Sutherland, supra, § 47.18.

2001Thus, “[m]any modern commentators have been critical of the ejusdem generis rule because it creates a manifest bias toward the strict construction of statutes.” Hovbilt, Inc. v. Township of Howell, 263 N.J.Super. 567, 572 , 623 A.2d 770 (App.Div.1993), aff'd, 138 N.J. 598 , 651 A.2d 77 (1994); 2A Sutherland, supra, § 47.18.

2007Hardwicke contended, based on this court's construction of the statute, see Hardwicke v. American Boychoir School, 368 N.J.Super. 71, 90 , 845 A. 2d 619 (App.Div.2004), that the term "guardian" is not limited in scope but includes the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), a government agency and "non-natural or artificial person," which often serves as a guardian to children.

2007Hardwicke contended, based on this court's construction of the statute, see Hardwicke v. American Boychoir School, 368 N.J.Super. 71, 90 , 845 A. 2d 619 (App.Div.2004), that the term "guardian" is not limited in scope but includes the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), a government agency and "non-natural or artificial person," which often serves as a guardian to children.

2007Because we seek to avoid rendering any part of a statute meaningless, State v. Reynolds, 124 N.J. 559, 564 , 592 A.2d 194 (1991), we cannot accept the Planning Board’s conclusion that subsection (e) applies to any parcel that is “not fully productive.” Rather, in view of the statute’s context and structure, a reasonable interpretation of N.J.S.A 40A:12A-5 is that each subsection provides, at least to a degree, an independent basis for designating property as “in need of redevelopment.” Consequently, the phrase “or other conditions” should be interpreted in accordance with the ejusdem generis p

2007Because we seek to avoid rendering any part of a statute meaningless, State v. Reynolds, 124 N.J. 559, 564 , 592 A.2d 194 (1991), we cannot accept the Planning Board’s conclusion that subsection (e) applies to any parcel that is “not fully productive.” Rather, in view of the statute’s context and structure, a reasonable interpretation of N.J.S.A 40A:12A-5 is that each subsection provides, at least to a degree, an independent basis for designating property as “in need of redevelopment.” Consequently, the phrase “or other conditions” should be interpreted in accordance with the ejusdem generis p

2007The School contended that the term person based on the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction could only apply to a natural person and not a corporation. *1229 Ibid.

1999In Fraser v. Robin Dee Day Camp, for example, this Court held that a “day camp is the type of accommodation which the Legislature intended to reach” because a “day camp offers accommodations which have many attributes in common with swimming pools, recreation and amusement parks, motion picture houses, theatres, music halls, gymnasiums, kindergarten and primary schools, all of which are specifically enumerated” in the LAD. 44 N.J. at 487 , 210 A.2d 208 .

1999In Fraser v. Robin Dee Day Camp, for example, this Court held that a “day camp is the type of accommodation which the Legislature intended to reach” because a “day camp offers accommodations which have many attributes in common with swimming pools, recreation and amusement parks, motion picture houses, theatres, music halls, gymnasiums, kindergarten and primary schools, all of which are specifically enumerated” in the LAD. 44 N.J. at 487 , 210 A.2d 208 .

1994Township of Springfield v. Garner, 3 N.J.Tax 92 (Tax 1981), is significant in that a municipality sought to invoke the Correction of Errors statute to increase an assessment.

1994Township of Springfield v. Garner, 3 N.J.

1983Denbo v. Moorestown Tp., 23 N.J. 476 , 129 A.2d 710 (1957); Manczak v. Dover Tp., 2 N.J.Tax 529 (Tax Ct.1981); American Tel. & Tel. v. Taxation Div. Director, 4 N.J.Tax 638 (Tax Ct.1982).

1976Therefore, where the particular words exhaust the class, the general words must be construed as embracing something outside of that class." Edwards, supra at 3 N.J. at 24 ].