14 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1907–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State in Interest of JLSgreen2 sentences2020In re J.L.S., 610 P.2d 1294, 1295 (Utah 1980); see also State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46 , ¶ 273 n.371, 299 P.3d 892 (noting that we have “applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis” in interpreting this phrase). 2014Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the Utah Supreme Court interpreted this phrase to mean activities of the "same magnitude of gravity as that specifically described in the statute." State v. Balfour, 2008 UT App 410, ¶ 15 , 198 P.3d 471 (quoting In re J.L.S., 610 P.2d 1294, 1296 (Utah 1980)) (footnote omitted). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Serpentegreen2 sentences2016This doctrine provides that “where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of things, the general words will be construed as applying only to things of the same general class as those enumerated.” Serpente, 768 P.2d at 997 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 464 (5th ed. 1979)). 2001In its opinion, the court of appeals addressed first the definition of masturbation as used in the statute, and finding it to be inapplicable to A.T.'s conduct, next considered the broader language of subsection (e) proscribing "any other act of lewdness." Here, to demonstrate that the language "any other act of lewdness" language was not unconstitutionally vague, the court of appeals applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis, comparing the phrase "any other act of lewdness" to the specifically enumerated acts of lewdness set forth in subsections (a) through (d) of the statute, and concluded tha | 2 | 5 |
Nephi City v. Hansengreen2 sentences1998Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis (“of the same kind”), "general terms in a statute should ‘be given a meaning that is restricted to a sense analogous to the [more] specific terms.' ” Field *98 v. Boyer Co., L.C., 952 P.2d 1078, 1087 (Utah 1998) (alteration in original) (quoting Nephi City v. Hansen, 779 P.2d 673, 675 (Utah 1989)). 7 . 1991Nephi City v. Hansen, 779 P.2d 673, 675 (Utah 1989) (citing In re Disconnection of Certain Territory, 668 P.2d 544, 547-48 (Utah 1983)); see also Heathman v. Giles, 13 Utah 2d 368, 369-70 , 374 P.2d 839, 840 (1962). | 2 | 2 |
Heathman v. Gilesgreen2 sentences1991Nephi City v. Hansen, 779 P.2d 673, 675 (Utah 1989) (citing In re Disconnection of Certain Territory, 668 P.2d 544, 547-48 (Utah 1983)); see also Heathman v. Giles, 13 Utah 2d 368, 369-70 , 374 P.2d 839, 840 (1962). 1991Nephi City v. Hansen, 779 P.2d 673, 675 (Utah 1989) (citing In re Disconnection of Certain Territory, 668 P.2d 544, 547-48 (Utah 1983)); see also Heathman v. Giles, 13 Utah 2d 368, 369-70 , 374 P.2d 839, 840 (1962). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Maestasgreen2 sentences2020In re J.L.S., 610 P.2d 1294, 1295 (Utah 1980); see also State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46 , ¶ 273 n.371, 299 P.3d 892 (noting that we have “applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis” in interpreting this phrase). 2020In re J.L.S., 610 P.2d 1294, 1295 (Utah 1980); see also State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46 , ¶ 273 n.371, 299 P.3d 892 (noting that we have “applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis” in interpreting this phrase). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kennedygreen1 sentence2008Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, 7 the Utah Supreme Court interpreted this phrase to mean activities of the "same magnitude of gravity as that specifically described in the statute." In re J.L.S., 610 P.2d 1294, 1296 (Utah 1980); see also State v. Kennedy, 616 P.2d 594 , 597 & n. 4 (Utah 1980) (noting the supreme court's invocation, in In re J.L.S., 610 P.2d 1294 (Utah 1980), of the doctrine of ejusdem gen-eris to define the phrase "or otherwise takes indecent liberties"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Petersgreen1 sentence2008To determine whether the conduct is of equal gravity to the touching prong, the court must consider the totality of the facts, see State v. Peters, 796 P.2d 708, 711 (Utah Ct.App.1990), including the five factors identified in State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 482 (Utah 1988), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393 (Utah 1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bishopgreen1 sentence2008To determine whether the conduct is of equal gravity to the touching prong, the court must consider the totality of the facts, see State v. Peters, 796 P.2d 708, 711 (Utah Ct.App.1990), including the five factors identified in State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 482 (Utah 1988), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393 (Utah 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Field v. Boyer Co., LCgreen1 sentence1998Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis (“of the same kind”), "general terms in a statute should ‘be given a meaning that is restricted to a sense analogous to the [more] specific terms.' ” Field *98 v. Boyer Co., L.C., 952 P.2d 1078, 1087 (Utah 1998) (alteration in original) (quoting Nephi City v. Hansen, 779 P.2d 673, 675 (Utah 1989)). 7 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Disconnection of Certain Territory From Highland Citygreen1 sentence1991Nephi City v. Hansen, 779 P.2d 673, 675 (Utah 1989) (citing In re Disconnection of Certain Territory, 668 P.2d 544, 547-48 (Utah 1983)); see also Heathman v. Giles, 13 Utah 2d 368, 369-70 , 374 P.2d 839, 840 (1962). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. At
green
2 sentences2011The doctrine declares that in order to give meaning to the general term, the general term is understood as restricted to include things of the same kind, class, character, or nature as those specifically enumerated, unless there is something to show a *1032 contrary intent." (emphasis in original)); State v. Piep, 2004 UT App 7, ¶¶ 10-11 , 84 P.3d 850 (applying the ejusdem generis doctrine and discussing In re A.T., 2001 UT 82 , 34 P.3d 228 ). 2011The doctrine declares that in order to give meaning to the general term, the general term is understood as restricted to include things of the same kind, class, character, or nature as those specifically enumerated, unless there is something to show a *1032 contrary intent." (emphasis in original)); State v. Piep, 2004 UT App 7, ¶¶ 10-11 , 84 P.3d 850 (applying the ejusdem generis doctrine and discussing In re A.T., 2001 UT 82 , 34 P.3d 228 ). | 2 | 2004–2011 |
State v. Balfour
green
2 sentences2014Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the Utah Supreme Court interpreted this phrase to mean activities of the "same magnitude of gravity as that specifically described in the statute." State v. Balfour, 2008 UT App 410, ¶ 15 , 198 P.3d 471 (quoting In re J.L.S., 610 P.2d 1294, 1296 (Utah 1980)) (footnote omitted). 2014Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the Utah Supreme Court interpreted this phrase to mean activities of the "same magnitude of gravity as that specifically described in the statute." State v. Balfour, 2008 UT App 410, ¶ 15 , 198 P.3d 471 (quoting In re J.L.S., 610 P.2d 1294, 1296 (Utah 1980)) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Piep
green
2 sentences2011The doctrine declares that in order to give meaning to the general term, the general term is understood as restricted to include things of the same kind, class, character, or nature as those specifically enumerated, unless there is something to show a *1032 contrary intent." (emphasis in original)); State v. Piep, 2004 UT App 7, ¶¶ 10-11 , 84 P.3d 850 (applying the ejusdem generis doctrine and discussing In re A.T., 2001 UT 82 , 34 P.3d 228 ). 2011The doctrine declares that in order to give meaning to the general term, the general term is understood as restricted to include things of the same kind, class, character, or nature as those specifically enumerated, unless there is something to show a *1032 contrary intent." (emphasis in original)); State v. Piep, 2004 UT App 7, ¶¶ 10-11 , 84 P.3d 850 (applying the ejusdem generis doctrine and discussing In re A.T., 2001 UT 82 , 34 P.3d 228 ). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Menzies
green
1 sentence2008To determine whether the conduct is of equal gravity to the touching prong, the court must consider the totality of the facts, see State v. Peters, 796 P.2d 708, 711 (Utah Ct.App.1990), including the five factors identified in State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 482 (Utah 1988), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393 (Utah 1994). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Joyslin v. Kent
green
1 sentence1907The general object of an act sometimes requires that the final general term shall not be restricted in meaning by its more specific predecessors.” (Willis v. Mabon, 48 Minn. 140 , 50 N. W. 1110 , 16 L. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Willis v. Mabon
green
1 sentence1907The general object of an act sometimes requires that the final general term shall not be restricted in meaning by its more specific predecessors.” (Willis v. Mabon, 48 Minn. 140 , 50 N. W. 1110 , 16 L. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.
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.