doctrine stands principle in Michigan

2025In its entirety, MCL 141.875(5) provides that “[t]he owner of a transient facility shall not be liable for payment of an assessment until a marketing program notice has been mailed to the transient facility of the owner pursuant to section 6 “This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” Tyler v Livonia Pub Sch, 459 Mich 382, 391 ; 590 NW2d 560 (1999). -7- 3.” However, § 3 provides that the notice must be sent “to each owner of a transient facility located in the assessment district specified in the notice, in care of the respective t

2025In its entirety, MCL 141.875(5) provides that “[t]he owner of a transient facility shall not be liable for payment of an assessment until a marketing program notice has been mailed to the transient facility of the owner pursuant to section 6 “This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” Tyler v Livonia Pub Sch, 459 Mich 382, 391 ; 590 NW2d 560 (1999). -7- 3.” However, § 3 provides that the notice must be sent “to each owner of a transient facility located in the assessment district specified in the notice, in care of the respective t

2026“Contextual understanding of statutes is generally grounded in the doctrine of noscitur a sociis: ‘[i]t is known from its associates.’ ” Koontz v Ameritech Servs, Inc, 466 Mich 304, 318 ; 645 NW2d 34 (2002) (citations omitted; alteration in original). ”This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). ”As a general matter, words and clauses will not be divorced from those which precede and those which follow.” Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins, 472 Mich 521, 533 ; 697 NW2d 895 (2005) (quotatio

2026“Contextual understanding of statutes is generally grounded in the doctrine of noscitur a sociis: ‘[i]t is known from its associates.’ ” Koontz v Ameritech Servs, Inc, 466 Mich 304, 318 ; 645 NW2d 34 (2002) (citations omitted; alteration in original). ”This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). ”As a general matter, words and clauses will not be divorced from those which precede and those which follow.” Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins, 472 Mich 521, 533 ; 697 NW2d 895 (2005) (quotatio

2009State ex el Wayne Co Prosecutor v Diversified Theatrical Corp, 396 Mich 244, 249 ; 240 NW2d 460 (1976), quoting People v Goldman, 7 Ill App 3d 253, 255; 287 NE2d 177 (1972). 9 The idea of a word meaning something different in light of the surrounding language relates closely to the issue raised by this case: In what context is a chemical a pollutant?

2009State ex el Wayne Co Prosecutor v Diversified Theatrical Corp, 396 Mich 244, 249 ; 240 NW2d 460 (1976), quoting People v Goldman, 7 Ill App 3d 253, 255; 287 NE2d 177 (1972). 9 The idea of a word meaning something different in light of the surrounding language relates closely to the issue raised by this case: In what context is a chemical a pollutant?

2009State ex rel Cahalan, Wayne Co. Prosecutor v. Diversified Theatrical Corp., 396 Mich. 244, 249 , 240 N.W.2d 460 (1976), quoting People v. Goldman, 7 Ill.App.3d 253, 255 , 287 N.E.2d 177 (1972).9 9 United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has clarified the meaning of this rule by the example he uses in his recent book, A Matter of Interpretation.

2009State ex el Wayne Co Prosecutor v Diversified Theatrical Corp, 396 Mich 244, 249 ; 240 NW2d 460 (1976), quoting People v Goldman, 7 Ill App 3d 253, 255; 287 NE2d 177 (1972). 9 The idea of a word meaning something different in light of the surrounding language relates closely to the issue raised by this case: In what context is a chemical a pollutant?

2002This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” Brown v Genesee Co Bd of Comm’rs (After Remand), 464 Mich 430, 437 ; 628 NW2d 471 (2001), quoting Tyler v Livonia Schs, 459 Mich 382, 390-391 ; 590 NW2d 560 (1999).

2002This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” Brown v Genesee Co Bd of Comm’rs (After Remand), 464 Mich 430, 437 ; 628 NW2d 471 (2001), quoting Tyler v Livonia Schs, 459 Mich 382, 390-391 ; 590 NW2d 560 (1999).

2026“Contextual understanding of statutes is generally grounded in the doctrine of noscitur a sociis: ‘[i]t is known from its associates.’ ” Koontz v Ameritech Servs, Inc, 466 Mich 304, 318 ; 645 NW2d 34 (2002) (citations omitted; alteration in original). ”This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). ”As a general matter, words and clauses will not be divorced from those which precede and those which follow.” Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins, 472 Mich 521, 533 ; 697 NW2d 895 (2005) (quotatio

2026“Contextual understanding of statutes is generally grounded in the doctrine of noscitur a sociis: ‘[i]t is known from its associates.’ ” Koontz v Ameritech Servs, Inc, 466 Mich 304, 318 ; 645 NW2d 34 (2002) (citations omitted; alteration in original). ”This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). ”As a general matter, words and clauses will not be divorced from those which precede and those which follow.” Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins, 472 Mich 521, 533 ; 697 NW2d 895 (2005) (quotatio

2005Thus, this Court must consider “both the plain meaning of the critical word or phrase as well as ‘its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.’ ” Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 237 ; 596 NW2d 119 (1999), quoting Bailey v United States, 516 US 137, 145 ; 116 S Ct 501 ; 133 L Ed 2d 472 (1995).

2005Thus, this Court must consider “both the plain meaning of the critical word or phrase as well as ‘its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.’ ” Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 237 ; 596 NW2d 119 (1999), quoting Bailey v United States, 516 US 137, 145 ; 116 S Ct 501 ; 133 L Ed 2d 472 (1995).

2005Thus, this Court must consider “both the plain meaning of the critical word or phrase as well as ‘its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.’ ” Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 237 ; 596 NW2d 119 (1999), quoting Bailey v United States, 516 US 137, 145 ; 116 S Ct 501 ; 133 L Ed 2d 472 (1995).

2005Thus, this Court must consider “both the plain meaning of the critical word or phrase as well as ‘its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.’ ” Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 237 ; 596 NW2d 119 (1999), quoting Bailey v United States, 516 US 137, 145 ; 116 S Ct 501 ; 133 L Ed 2d 472 (1995).

2004Although a phrase or a statement may mean one thing when read in isolation, it may mean something substantially different when read in context. [Sweatt v Dep’t of Corrections, 468 Mich 172, 179-180 ; 661 NW2d 201 (2003) (citations omitted).] Although the noun “agency” may be used to describe a business or legal relationship between parties, it is wholly evident from the context of § 232(d) (iii) that this is not the sense in which that term is used.

2004Although a phrase or a statement may mean one thing when read in isolation, it may mean something substantially different when read in context. [Sweatt v Dep’t of Corrections, 468 Mich 172, 179-180 ; 661 NW2d 201 (2003) (citations omitted).] Although the noun “agency” may be used to describe a business or legal relationship between parties, it is wholly evident from the context of § 232(d) (iii) that this is not the sense in which that term is used.

2001This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” [Brown v Genesee Co Bd of Comm’rs, 464 Mich 430, 437 ; 628 NW2d 471 (2001) (opinion by Corrigan, C.J.), quoting Tyler v Livonia Public Schools, 459 Mich 382, 390-391 ; 590 NW2d 560 (1999).] Further, this Court may not “read [anything] into the statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as gathered from the [statute] itself.” In re Juvenile Commitment Costs, 240 Mich App 420, 427 ; 613 NW2d 348 (2000).

2001This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” [Brown v Genesee Co Bd of Comm’rs, 464 Mich 430, 437 ; 628 NW2d 471 (2001) (opinion by Corrigan, C.J.), quoting Tyler v Livonia Public Schools, 459 Mich 382, 390-391 ; 590 NW2d 560 (1999).] Further, this Court may not “read [anything] into the statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as gathered from the [statute] itself.” In re Juvenile Commitment Costs, 240 Mich App 420, 427 ; 613 NW2d 348 (2000).

2001“It is a familiar principle of statutory construction that words grouped in a list should be given related meaning.” Third Nat’l Bank in Nashville v Impac Ltd, Inc, 432 US 312, 322 ; 97 S Ct 2307 ; 53 L Ed 2d 368 (1977).

2001“It is a familiar principle of statutory construction that words grouped in a list should be given related meaning.” Third Nat’l Bank in Nashville v Impac Ltd, Inc, 432 US 312, 322 ; 97 S Ct 2307 ; 53 L Ed 2d 368 (1977).

2001This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” Tyler v Livonia Public Schs, 459 Mich 382, 390-391 ; 590 NW2d 560 (1999). “[I]n seeking meaning, words and clauses will not be divorced from those which precede and those which follow.” Sanchick v State Bd of Optometry, 342 Mich 555, 559 ; 70 NW2d 757 (1955).

2001This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” Tyler v Livonia Public Schs, 459 Mich 382, 390-391 ; 590 NW2d 560 (1999). “[I]n seeking meaning, words and clauses will not be divorced from those which precede and those which follow.” Sanchick v State Bd of Optometry, 342 Mich 555, 559 ; 70 NW2d 757 (1955).