ejusdem generis rule in Arizona

15 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1945–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (16)

Case	Followed	Cited
White v. Mooregreen ariz · 1935 · cited in 4 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1945–1998 2 sentences 1998First, the language of subsection C(15) itself states that the court may only consider other factors it deems “appropriate to the ends of justice.” Second, the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction limits the factors the sentencing court can consider under the catchall language of C(15) to factors similar to those in C(l) to C(14). “ ‘[W]here general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words should be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class of those enumerated.’ ” Wilderness World, Inc. v. A 1998First, the language of subsection C(15) itself states that the court may only consider other factors it deems “appropriate to the ends of justice.” Second, the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction limits the factors the sentencing court can consider under the catchall language of C(15) to factors similar to those in C(l) to C(14). “ ‘[W]here general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words should be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class of those enumerated.’ ” Wilderness World, Inc. v. A	3	4
Bilke v. Stategreen ariz · 2003 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2004–2017 2 sentences 2004See Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462, 465, ¶ 13 , 80 P.3d 269, 272 (2003). ("The Legislature did not create in A.R.S. § 12—2101 (G) a list of specific or similar things from which this court can infer an intention to narrow the subsequent general class of ‘other proceedings.’ Thus, the ejusdem generis rule does not apply.”) 2004See Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462, 465, ¶ 13 , 80 P.3d 269, 272 (2003). ("The Legislature did not create in A.R.S. § 12—2101 (G) a list of specific or similar things from which this court can infer an intention to narrow the subsequent general class of ‘other proceedings.’ Thus, the ejusdem generis rule does not apply.”)	2	2
State v. Barnettgreen ariz · 1984 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009Under the ejusdem generis doctrine, “general words which follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be interpreted as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class.” State v. Barnett, 142 Ariz. 592, 596 , 691 P.2d 683, 687 (1984). 2 . 2009Under the ejusdem generis doctrine, “general words which follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be interpreted as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class.” State v. Barnett, 142 Ariz. 592, 596 , 691 P.2d 683, 687 (1984). 2 .	2	2
Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONAgreen arizctapp · 2008 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009Analyzing the phrase “medical, surgical and hospital benefits or other 1 Under the ejusdem generis doctrine, “general words which follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be interpreted as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class.” State v. Barnett, 142 Ariz. 592, 596 , 691 P.2d 683, 687 (1984). - 5 - treatment,” the court determined that “other treatment” is limited to “other [medical] treatment.” Id. at 582, ¶ 17, 190 P.3d at 741 (alteration in original). 2009Carbajal, 218 Ariz. at 581-82, ¶¶ 13, 17 , 190 P.3d at 740-41 .	2	2
Hughes v. Industrial Commissiongreen arizctapp · 1996 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2000–2008 2 sentences 2008Comm'n, 188 Ariz. 150, 153-54 , 933 P.2d 1218, 1221-22 (App.1996), cited by the majority in ¶ 19 does not assist the majority's ejusdem generis analysis because it was premised on rejecting care for a third person, not the claimant. 2008Comm'n, 188 Ariz. 150, 153-54 , 933 P.2d 1218, 1221-22 (App.1996), cited by the majority in ¶ 19 does not assist the majority's ejusdem generis analysis because it was premised on rejecting care for a third person, not the claimant.	2	2
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenuegreen ariz · 1995 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1998–1999 2 sentences 1999Wilderness World, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 182 Ariz. 196, 199 , 895 P.2d 108, 111 (1995) (under doctrine of ejusdem generis, general words following enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be construed as applicable only to persons or things of same general nature or class as those enumerated); cf. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff, 4 P.3d 965, 296 Ariz. Adv. 1999Wilderness World, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 182 Ariz. 196, 199 , 895 P.2d 108, 111 (1995) (under doctrine of ejusdem generis, general words following enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be construed as applicable only to persons or things of same general nature or class as those enumerated); cf. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff, 4 P.3d 965, 296 Ariz. Adv.	1	2
Wilderness World Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenuegreen arizctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998First, the language of subsection C(15) itself states that the court may only consider other factors it deems “appropriate to the ends of justice.” Second, the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction limits the factors the sentencing court can consider under the catchall language of C(15) to factors similar to those in C(l) to C(14). “ ‘[W]here general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words should be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class of those enumerated.’ ” Wilderness World, Inc. v. A 1998First, the language of subsection C(15) itself states that the court may only consider other factors it deems “appropriate to the ends of justice.” Second, the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction limits the factors the sentencing court can consider under the catchall language of C(15) to factors similar to those in C(l) to C(14). “ ‘[W]here general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words should be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class of those enumerated.’ ” Wilderness World, Inc. v. A	1	1
Alvord v. State Tax Commissiongreen ariz · 1950 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995The Department argues that the doctrine of ejusdem generis does not apply because the statute’s general clause (“any business charging admission fees for exhibition, amusement or instruction”) does not include the word “other.” Both White and Alvord , which we find controlling, involved a statute with a general clause that reads “or any other business or occupation charging storage fees or rents.” Alvord, 69 Ariz. at 289 , 213 P.2d at 365 ; White, 46 Ariz. at 56 , 46 P.2d at 1080 (emphasis added). 1995The Department argues that the doctrine of ejusdem generis does not apply because the statute’s general clause (“any business charging admission fees for exhibition, amusement or instruction”) does not include the word “other.” Both White and Alvord , which we find controlling, involved a statute with a general clause that reads “or any other business or occupation charging storage fees or rents.” Alvord, 69 Ariz. at 289 , 213 P.2d at 365 ; White, 46 Ariz. at 56 , 46 P.2d at 1080 (emphasis added).	1	1
United States v. Parkergreen ca3 · 1939 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1957–1957 1 sentence 1957See, Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 126 , 56 S.Ct. 395 , 80 L.Ed. 522 (to prevent arrest), United States v. Parker, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 450, 453 , affirmed in 3 Cir., 103 F. 2d 857, 860 , certiorari denied 307 U.S. 642 , 59 S.Ct. 1044 , 83 L.Ed. 1522 (to enhance defendant’s reputation as a detective), United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, 882 (to place victim in house of prostitution), and Poindexter v. United States, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 158 (for flogging).	1	1
United States v. Bazzell. United States v. Lasbygreen ca7 · 1951 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1957–1957 1 sentence 1957See, Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 126 , 56 S.Ct. 395 , 80 L.Ed. 522 (to prevent arrest), United States v. Parker, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 450, 453 , affirmed in 3 Cir., 103 F. 2d 857, 860 , certiorari denied 307 U.S. 642 , 59 S.Ct. 1044 , 83 L.Ed. 1522 (to enhance defendant’s reputation as a detective), United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, 882 (to place victim in house of prostitution), and Poindexter v. United States, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 158 (for flogging).	1	1
Gooch v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1936 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1957–1957 2 sentences 1957See, Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 126 , 56 S.Ct. 395 , 80 L.Ed. 522 (to prevent arrest), United States v. Parker, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 450, 453 , affirmed in 3 Cir., 103 F. 2d 857, 860 , certiorari denied 307 U.S. 642 , 59 S.Ct. 1044 , 83 L.Ed. 1522 (to enhance defendant’s reputation as a detective), United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, 882 (to place victim in house of prostitution), and Poindexter v. United States, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 158 (for flogging). 1957See, Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 126 , 56 S.Ct. 395 , 80 L.Ed. 522 (to prevent arrest), United States v. Parker, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 450, 453 , affirmed in 3 Cir., 103 F. 2d 857, 860 , certiorari denied 307 U.S. 642 , 59 S.Ct. 1044 , 83 L.Ed. 1522 (to enhance defendant’s reputation as a detective), United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, 882 (to place victim in house of prostitution), and Poindexter v. United States, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 158 (for flogging).	1	1
United States v. Parkergreen njd · 1937 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1957–1957 1 sentence 1957See, Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 126 , 56 S.Ct. 395 , 80 L.Ed. 522 (to prevent arrest), United States v. Parker, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 450, 453 , affirmed in 3 Cir., 103 F. 2d 857, 860 , certiorari denied 307 U.S. 642 , 59 S.Ct. 1044 , 83 L.Ed. 1522 (to enhance defendant’s reputation as a detective), United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, 882 (to place victim in house of prostitution), and Poindexter v. United States, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 158 (for flogging).	1	1
Poindexter v. United Statesgreen ca8 · 1943 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1957–1957 1 sentence 1957See, Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 126 , 56 S.Ct. 395 , 80 L.Ed. 522 (to prevent arrest), United States v. Parker, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 450, 453 , affirmed in 3 Cir., 103 F. 2d 857, 860 , certiorari denied 307 U.S. 642 , 59 S.Ct. 1044 , 83 L.Ed. 1522 (to enhance defendant’s reputation as a detective), United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, 882 (to place victim in house of prostitution), and Poindexter v. United States, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 158 (for flogging).	1	1
Speck v. Lavino Shipping Co.green scotus · 1939 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1957–1957 1 sentence 1957See, Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 126 , 56 S.Ct. 395 , 80 L.Ed. 522 (to prevent arrest), United States v. Parker, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 450, 453 , affirmed in 3 Cir., 103 F. 2d 857, 860 , certiorari denied 307 U.S. 642 , 59 S.Ct. 1044 , 83 L.Ed. 1522 (to enhance defendant’s reputation as a detective), United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, 882 (to place victim in house of prostitution), and Poindexter v. United States, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 158 (for flogging).	1	1
Parker v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1939 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1957–1957 1 sentence 1957See, Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 126 , 56 S.Ct. 395 , 80 L.Ed. 522 (to prevent arrest), United States v. Parker, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 450, 453 , affirmed in 3 Cir., 103 F. 2d 857, 860 , certiorari denied 307 U.S. 642 , 59 S.Ct. 1044 , 83 L.Ed. 1522 (to enhance defendant’s reputation as a detective), United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, 882 (to place victim in house of prostitution), and Poindexter v. United States, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 158 (for flogging).	1	1
Townshend v. Union Trust Co.green scotus · 1939 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1957–1957 1 sentence 1957See, Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 126 , 56 S.Ct. 395 , 80 L.Ed. 522 (to prevent arrest), United States v. Parker, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 450, 453 , affirmed in 3 Cir., 103 F. 2d 857, 860 , certiorari denied 307 U.S. 642 , 59 S.Ct. 1044 , 83 L.Ed. 1522 (to enhance defendant’s reputation as a detective), United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, 882 (to place victim in house of prostitution), and Poindexter v. United States, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 158 (for flogging).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
City of Phoenix v. Yates green ariz · 1949 2 sentences 2004Yates, 69 Ariz. at 73-74 , 208 P.2d at 1150 . 2004Yates, 69 Ariz. at 73-74 , 208 P.2d at 1150 .	1	2004–2004
Cook v. Cook green arizctapp · 1976 2 sentences 2003Thus, a plain reading of § 12-2101(G) does not support the conclusion that it includes only equitable proceedings. ¶ 13 Moreover, we agree with Cook’s rejection of the ejusdem generis rule, which if applied would limit “the type of proceedings in which appeals [under § 12-2101(G)] should be allowed.” 26 Ariz.App. at 167 , 547 P.2d at 19 . 2003Thus, a plain reading of § 12-2101(G) does not support the conclusion that it includes only equitable proceedings. ¶ 13 Moreover, we agree with Cook’s rejection of the ejusdem generis rule, which if applied would limit “the type of proceedings in which appeals [under § 12-2101(G)] should be allowed.” 26 Ariz.App. at 167 , 547 P.2d at 19 .	1	2003–2003
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff green arizctapp · 1999 2 sentences 1999Wilderness World, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 182 Ariz. 196, 199 , 895 P.2d 108, 111 (1995) (under doctrine of ejusdem generis, general words following enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be construed as applicable only to persons or things of same general nature or class as those enumerated); cf. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff, 4 P.3d 965, 296 Ariz. Adv. 1999Wilderness World, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 182 Ariz. 196, 199 , 895 P.2d 108, 111 (1995) (under doctrine of ejusdem generis, general words following enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be construed as applicable only to persons or things of same general nature or class as those enumerated); cf. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff, 4 P.3d 965, 296 Ariz. Adv.	1	1999–1999
Hans v. Great Bend Brick & Tile Co. neutral kan · 1952 2 sentences 1984Thus, in Kansas, a reservation of “all of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under, and that may be produced from” the land was ambiguous as to commercial clay, Hans v. Great Bend Brick & Tile Co., 172 Kan. 478 , 241 P.2d 475 (1952); but a lease of “natural gas, petroleum and other mineral substances” unambiguously excluded limestone, coal, clay, gypsum, gravel, rock and dirt under the doctrine of ejusdem generis. 1984Thus, in Kansas, a reservation of “all of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under, and that may be produced from” the land was ambiguous as to commercial clay, Hans v. Great Bend Brick & Tile Co., 172 Kan. 478 , 241 P.2d 475 (1952); but a lease of “natural gas, petroleum and other mineral substances” unambiguously excluded limestone, coal, clay, gypsum, gravel, rock and dirt under the doctrine of ejusdem generis.	1	1984–1984
Orr Ditch & Water Co. v. Justice Court of Reno Township green nev · 1947 2 sentences 1980United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86 , 61 S.Ct. 518 , 85 L.Ed. 598 (1941); Orr Ditch 451 and Water Co. v. Justice Ct. of Reno, 64 Nev. 138 , 178 P.2d 558 (1947). 1980United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86 , 61 S.Ct. 518 , 85 L.Ed. 598 (1941); Orr Ditch 451 and Water Co. v. Justice Ct. of Reno, 64 Nev. 138 , 178 P.2d 558 (1947).	1	1980–1980
United States v. Gilliland green scotus · 1941 2 sentences 1980United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86 , 61 S.Ct. 518 , 85 L.Ed. 598 (1941); Orr Ditch 451 and Water Co. v. Justice Ct. of Reno, 64 Nev. 138 , 178 P.2d 558 (1947). 1980United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86 , 61 S.Ct. 518 , 85 L.Ed. 598 (1941); Orr Ditch 451 and Water Co. v. Justice Ct. of Reno, 64 Nev. 138 , 178 P.2d 558 (1947).	1	1980–1980

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-120.24 (5) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1062 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 99 (1898–2026) TX 81 (1911–2025) CA 68 (1910–2025) WA 50 (1970–2024) PA 45 (1926–2026) MI 34 (1937–2023) NY 26 (1917–2024) NJ 19 (1965–2025) FL 18 (1927–2012) AL 17 (1915–2013) OH 16 (1944–2023) MD 16 (1970–2026) NC 15 (1957–2018) AZ 15 (1945–2017) UT 14 (1907–2020) IN 13 (1913–2024) AR 13 (1948–2025) OR 12 (1910–2019) MA 12 (1971–2026) TN 11 (1949–2021) OK 11 (1916–2008) KY 11 (1899–2022) LA 11 (1958–2021) VA 10 (1962–2024) WI 10 (1939–2015) HI 9 (1915–2019) NM 9 (1974–2014) CT 8 (1968–2013) MO 8 (1884–2023) MN 8 (1973–2018) IA 7 (1971–2019) ID 6 (1985–2018) KS 6 (1925–2020) CO 6 (1942–2023) WV 6 (1935–2024) MT 5 (1925–2009) NE 5 (1950–2005) RI 5 (1997–2026) MS 4 (1973–2000) NH 4 (1986–2019) WY 4 (1924–2015) GA 4 (1913–2021) ME 4 (1983–2021) DC 3 (1970–1991) ND 3 (1913–2007) AK 3 (2006–2019) SC 2 (1984–1995)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check