noscitur a sociis doctrine in Florida

2020See Nehme v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 863 So. 2d 201, 205 (Fla. 2003) (“Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis (a word is known by the company it keeps), one examines the other words used within a string of concepts to derive the legislature’s overall intent.”).

2018"Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis (a word is known by the company it keeps), one examines the other words used within a string of concepts to derive the legislature's overall intent." Nehme v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 863 So. 2d 201, 205 (Fla. 2003); see also Stratton v. Sarasota County, 983 So. 2d 51, 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

2007Cf. Turnberry Isle Resort and Club v. Fernandez , 666 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis , the meaning of statutory terms, and the legislative intent behind them, may be discovered by referring to words associated with them in the statute); Cepcot Corporation v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board , 658 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (court looked to the terms "construct," "repair," "remodel," and "demolish," in the statute to determine what types of duties were encompassed by the use of the terms "alter"

2002See Cepcot Corp. v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 658 So.2d 1092 (Fla.1995) (referring to doctrine of noscitur a sociis, under which court examines other words used within string of concepts to derive legislature's overall intent in statute).

2008When examining the words used, "general and specific words which are capable of an analogous meaning being associated together take color from each other, so that the general words are restricted to a sense analogous to the less general." Carraway v. Armour & Co., 156 So.2d 494, 495 (Fla.1963) (quoting Ex parte Amos, 93 Fla. 5 , 112 So. 289, 293 (1927)).

2004See Cepcot Corp. v. Dept. of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 658 So.2d 1092, 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Carraway v. Armour & Co., 156 So.2d 494 (Fla.1963).

2025The term “altering” doesn’t mean the same thing as “eliminating.” The language does not contemplate simply a 13 binary situation of a right to vote or no right to vote, but “mak[ing] different without changing into something else” or “becom[ing] different.” Alter, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/alter; see also State v. Carrier, 240 So. 3d 852, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (setting forth the “ordinary meaning of the word ‘alter’” as “‘to change or modify and to make different in some particular characteristic without changing it into something else’” and exami

2025Co., 904 So. 2d 470, 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

2019The name of the crime of which Mr. Mesen was convicted, "lewd or lascivious exhibition in the presence of an elderly person or disabled person," § 825.1025(4), uses a term that describes the act of making something visible: "exhibition."3 The doctrine of noscitur a sociis (a "word is known by the company it keeps") is relied upon "to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words." Cosio v. State, 227 So. 3d 209, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 575 (1995)).

2019The name of the crime of which Mr. Mesen was convicted, "lewd or lascivious exhibition in the presence of an elderly person or disabled person," § 825.1025(4), uses a term that describes the act of making something visible: "exhibition."3 The doctrine of noscitur a sociis (a "word is known by the company it keeps") is relied upon "to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words." Cosio v. State, 227 So. 3d 209, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 575 (1995)).

2018"Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis (a word is known by the company it keeps), one examines the other words used within a string of concepts to derive the legislature's overall intent." Nehme v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 863 So. 2d 201, 205 (Fla. 2003); see also Stratton v. Sarasota County, 983 So. 2d 51, 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

2008When examining the words used, "general and specific words which are capable of an analogous meaning being associated together take color from each other, so that the general words are restricted to a sense analogous to the less general." Carraway v. Armour & Co., 156 So.2d 494, 495 (Fla.1963) (quoting Ex parte Amos, 93 Fla. 5 , 112 So. 289, 293 (1927)).

2004Nehme v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 863 So.2d 201, 205 (Fla.2003); see also WFTV, Inc. v. Wilken, 675 So.2d 674, 678-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (noting that a statutory term should not be read in isolation but rather in context).

1992Second, using the well-established doctrine of noscitur a sociis, which finds words of general import colored by the more particular words accompanying them, Shadow West Apartments, Ltd. v. State, Dep't of Transp., 498 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), we cannot construe the italicized language so broadly as the Association would wish; to do so would give the general words a meaning wholly unrelated to the more specific terms in this subsection.

1992See id.