Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shurgard Mini-Storage of Tumwater v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2000The well recognized rules of statutory construction, noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, suggest an alternative construction of "mass public transportation terminal." Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, "the meaning of words may be indicated or controlled by those with which they are associated." State v. Jackson, 137 Wash.2d 712, 729 , 976 P.2d 1229 (1999) ( quoting Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn.2d 79, 87-88 , 221 P.2d 832 (1950); see also Shurgard Mini-Storage v. Department of Revenue, 40 Wash.App. 721, 727 , 700 P.2d 1176 (1985). 2000The well-recognized rules of statutory construction, noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, suggest an alternative construction of “mass public transportation terminal.” Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, “ ‘the meaning of words may be indicated or controlled by those with which they are associated.’ ” State v. Jackson, 137 Wn.2d 712, 729 , 976 P.2d 1229 (1999) (quoting Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn.2d 79, 87-88 , 221 P.2d 832 (1950)); see also Shurgard Mini-Storage v. Department of Revenue, 40 Wn. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Roggenkampgreen2 sentences2008State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wn.2d 614, 623 , 106 P.3d 196 (2005) (applying the doctrine of noscitur a sociis); State v. Van Woerden, 93 Wn. 2008State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wn.2d 614, 623 , 106 P.3d 196 (2005) (applying the doctrine of noscitur a sociis); State v. Van Woerden, 93 Wn. | 1 | 5 |
United States v. Lauderdale Cnty.green1 sentence2024This statutory construction tool applies “‘when a string of statutory terms raises the implication that the words grouped in a list should be given related meaning.’” Valdiglesias LaValle, 2 Wn.3d at 321 n.7 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Lauderdale County, 914 F.3d 960, 967 (5th Cir. 2019)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Douglasgreen1 sentence2024However, we have held that it is “‘inapplicable when the statute provides few other analogous terms.’” Valdiglesias LaValle, 2 Wn.3d at 321 n.7 (declining to apply the doctrine of noscitur a sociis to “‘money or other thing of value’” to interpret the statutory term “other thing of value”) (quoting United States v. Douglas, 634 F.3d 852, 858 (6th Cir. 2011)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2000The well-recognized rules of statutory construction, noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, suggest an alternative construction of “mass public transportation terminal.” Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, “ ‘the meaning of words may be indicated or controlled by those with which they are associated.’ ” State v. Jackson, 137 Wn.2d 712, 729 , 976 P.2d 1229 (1999) (quoting Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn.2d 79, 87-88 , 221 P.2d 832 (1950)); see also Shurgard Mini-Storage v. Department of Revenue, 40 Wn. 2000The well-recognized rules of statutory construction, noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, suggest an alternative construction of “mass public transportation terminal.” Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, “ ‘the meaning of words may be indicated or controlled by those with which they are associated.’ ” State v. Jackson, 137 Wn.2d 712, 729 , 976 P.2d 1229 (1999) (quoting Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn.2d 79, 87-88 , 221 P.2d 832 (1950)); see also Shurgard Mini-Storage v. Department of Revenue, 40 Wn. | 4 | 2000–2008 |
Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000The well-recognized rules of statutory construction, noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, suggest an alternative construction of “mass public transportation terminal.” Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, “ ‘the meaning of words may be indicated or controlled by those with which they are associated.’ ” State v. Jackson, 137 Wn.2d 712, 729 , 976 P.2d 1229 (1999) (quoting Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn.2d 79, 87-88 , 221 P.2d 832 (1950)); see also Shurgard Mini-Storage v. Department of Revenue, 40 Wn. 2000The well-recognized rules of statutory construction, noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, suggest an alternative construction of “mass public transportation terminal.” Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, “ ‘the meaning of words may be indicated or controlled by those with which they are associated.’ ” State v. Jackson, 137 Wn.2d 712, 729 , 976 P.2d 1229 (1999) (quoting Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn.2d 79, 87-88 , 221 P.2d 832 (1950)); see also Shurgard Mini-Storage v. Department of Revenue, 40 Wn. | 4 | 1999–2000 |
State v. Van Woerden
green
2 sentences2008State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wash.2d 614, 623 , 106 P.3d 196 (2005) (applying the doctrine of noscitur a sociis); State v. Van Woerden, 93 Wash.App. 110, 117 , 967 P.2d 14 (1998). 2008State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wn.2d 614, 623 , 106 P.3d 196 (2005) (applying the doctrine of noscitur a sociis); State v. Van Woerden, 93 Wn. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Greenwood v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2005Schillberg v. Barnett, 79 Wash.2d 578, 584 , 488 P.2d 255 (1971). "`[T]he drafters of legislation... are presumed to have used no superfluous words and we must accord meaning, if possible, to every word in a statute.'" In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wash.2d 756, 767 , 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (quoting Greenwood v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 13 Wash.App. 624, 628 , 536 P.2d 644 (1975)). "[W]e may not delete language from an unambiguous statute:' "Statutes must be interpreted and construed so that all the language used is given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous."'" State 2005Schillberg v. Barnett, 79 Wn.2d 578, 584 , 488 P.2d 255 (1971). “ £[T]he drafters of legislation . . . are presumed to have used no superfluous words and we must accord meaning, if possible, to every word in a statute.’ ” In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d 756, 767 , 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (quoting Greenwood v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 13 Wn. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
In re the Recall of Pearsall-Stipek
green
2 sentences2005Schillberg v. Barnett, 79 Wn.2d 578, 584 , 488 P.2d 255 (1971). “ £[T]he drafters of legislation . . . are presumed to have used no superfluous words and we must accord meaning, if possible, to every word in a statute.’ ” In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d 756, 767 , 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (quoting Greenwood v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 13 Wn. 2005Schillberg v. Barnett, 79 Wn.2d 578, 584 , 488 P.2d 255 (1971). “ £[T]he drafters of legislation . . . are presumed to have used no superfluous words and we must accord meaning, if possible, to every word in a statute.’ ” In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d 756, 767 , 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (quoting Greenwood v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 13 Wn. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State Ex Rel. Schillberg v. Barnett
green
2 sentences2005Schillberg v. Barnett, 79 Wn.2d 578, 584 , 488 P.2d 255 (1971). “ £[T]he drafters of legislation . . . are presumed to have used no superfluous words and we must accord meaning, if possible, to every word in a statute.’ ” In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d 756, 767 , 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (quoting Greenwood v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 13 Wn. 2005Schillberg v. Barnett, 79 Wn.2d 578, 584 , 488 P.2d 255 (1971). “ £[T]he drafters of legislation . . . are presumed to have used no superfluous words and we must accord meaning, if possible, to every word in a statute.’ ” In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d 756, 767 , 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (quoting Greenwood v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 13 Wn. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.
green
2 sentences2006Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 575 , 115 S.Ct. 1061 , 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995) ("a word is known by the company it keeps (the doctrine of noscitur a sociis")); State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wash.2d 614, 623 , 106 P.3d 196 (2005). 2006Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 575 , 115 S.Ct. 1061 , 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995) ("a word is known by the company it keeps (the doctrine of noscitur a sociis")); State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wash.2d 614, 623 , 106 P.3d 196 (2005). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Whatcom County v. City of Bellingham
green
2 sentences2005Schillberg v. Barnett, 79 Wash.2d 578, 584 , 488 P.2d 255 (1971). "`[T]he drafters of legislation... are presumed to have used no superfluous words and we must accord meaning, if possible, to every word in a statute.'" In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wash.2d 756, 767 , 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (quoting Greenwood v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 13 Wash.App. 624, 628 , 536 P.2d 644 (1975)). "[W]e may not delete language from an unambiguous statute:' "Statutes must be interpreted and construed so that all the language used is given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous."'" State 2005Schillberg v. Barnett, 79 Wash.2d 578, 584 , 488 P.2d 255 (1971). "`[T]he drafters of legislation... are presumed to have used no superfluous words and we must accord meaning, if possible, to every word in a statute.'" In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wash.2d 756, 767 , 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (quoting Greenwood v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 13 Wash.App. 624, 628 , 536 P.2d 644 (1975)). "[W]e may not delete language from an unambiguous statute:' "Statutes must be interpreted and construed so that all the language used is given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous."'" State | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. JP
green
2 sentences2005Schillberg v. Barnett, 79 Wash.2d 578, 584 , 488 P.2d 255 (1971). "`[T]he drafters of legislation... are presumed to have used no superfluous words and we must accord meaning, if possible, to every word in a statute.'" In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wash.2d 756, 767 , 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (quoting Greenwood v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 13 Wash.App. 624, 628 , 536 P.2d 644 (1975)). "[W]e may not delete language from an unambiguous statute:' "Statutes must be interpreted and construed so that all the language used is given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous."'" State 2005Schillberg v. Barnett, 79 Wash.2d 578, 584 , 488 P.2d 255 (1971). "`[T]he drafters of legislation... are presumed to have used no superfluous words and we must accord meaning, if possible, to every word in a statute.'" In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wash.2d 756, 767 , 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (quoting Greenwood v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 13 Wash.App. 624, 628 , 536 P.2d 644 (1975)). "[W]e may not delete language from an unambiguous statute:' "Statutes must be interpreted and construed so that all the language used is given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous."'" State | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Davis v. Department of Licensing
green
2 sentences2005Schillberg v. Barnett, 79 Wash.2d 578, 584 , 488 P.2d 255 (1971). "`[T]he drafters of legislation... are presumed to have used no superfluous words and we must accord meaning, if possible, to every word in a statute.'" In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wash.2d 756, 767 , 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (quoting Greenwood v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 13 Wash.App. 624, 628 , 536 P.2d 644 (1975)). "[W]e may not delete language from an unambiguous statute:' "Statutes must be interpreted and construed so that all the language used is given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous."'" State 2005Schillberg v. Barnett, 79 Wash.2d 578, 584 , 488 P.2d 255 (1971). "`[T]he drafters of legislation... are presumed to have used no superfluous words and we must accord meaning, if possible, to every word in a statute.'" In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wash.2d 756, 767 , 10 P.3d 1034 (2000) (quoting Greenwood v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 13 Wash.App. 624, 628 , 536 P.2d 644 (1975)). "[W]e may not delete language from an unambiguous statute:' "Statutes must be interpreted and construed so that all the language used is given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous."'" State | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.