noscitur a sociis doctrine in Washington

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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Shurgard Mini-Storage of Tumwater v. Department of Revenuegreen washctapp · 1985 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1998–2000 2 sentences 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. 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 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).	2	3
State v. Roggenkampgreen wash · 2005 · cited in 5 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2006–2008 2 sentences 2008State 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.	1	5
United States v. Douglasgreen ca6 · 2011 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024However, 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
United States v. City of Meridiangreen ca5 · 2019 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024This 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

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Roggenkamp green wash · 2005 2 sentences 2008State 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.	5	2006–2008
State v. Jackson green wash · 1999 2 sentences 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. 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 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).	4	2000–2008
State v. Jackson green wash · 1999 2 sentences 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. 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 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).	4	2000–2008
Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc. green wash · 1950 2 sentences 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. 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 washctapp · 1998 2 sentences 2008State 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 washctapp · 1975 2 sentences 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. 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	2	2005–2005
In re the Recall of Pearsall-Stipek green wash · 2000 2 sentences 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. 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	2	2005–2005
State Ex Rel. Schillberg v. Barnett green wash · 1971 2 sentences 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. 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 Recall of Pearsall-Stipek green wash · 2000 2 sentences 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. 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	2	2005–2005
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. green scotus · 1995 2 sentences 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). 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
Davis v. Department of Licensing green wash · 1999 1 sentence 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. J.P. green wash · 2003 1 sentence 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 wash · 1999 1 sentence 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
Whatcom County v. City of Bellingham green wash · 1996 2 sentences 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 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 wash · 2003 1 sentence 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

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.42.010 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.42.030 (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

MI 49 (2000–2026) CA 19 (1987–2025) IL 16 (2005–2025) FL 15 (1992–2025) WA 13 (1998–2024) CO 6 (2010–2024) VA 5 (1971–2015) AR 4 (1995–2010) TN 4 (2005–2015) OR 4 (1982–2023) CT 4 (1994–1998) NV 3 (2023–2025) NJ 3 (1973–2023) MN 3 (1999–2013) IA 3 (1981–2012) NY 3 (1996–2002) RI 3 (2004–2011) WI 3 (1930–1932) MD 2 (1982–2014) WV 2 (1999–2021) HI 2 (1974–1996) UT 2 (1991–1993) TX 2 (2022–2022) AZ 2 (2023–2023) AL 2 (2003–2024)

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