ejusdem generis doctrine in Massachusetts

2024The first is the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which states that where, as here, "general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words." Banushi v. Dorfman, 438 Mass. 242, 244 (2002), quoting 2A N.J.

2014Our decisions therefore have interpreted the term “building” pursuant to the doctrine of ejusdem generis: “Where general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.” Banushi, supra at 244 , quoting 2A N.J.

2005Compare note 16, infra, and Banushi v. Dorfman, 438 Mass. at 244-245 ; Santos v. Bettencourt, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 90, 92-93 (1996); and Osorno v. Simone, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 612, 615-618 (2002) (all restricting the generality of the term “building” by reference to the specific words in a series under the doctrine of ejusdem generis).

2003Contrast Santos v. Bettencourt, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 90 (1996) (statutory definition limited by the application of the doctrine of ejusdem generis).

2022That doctrine provides that "[w]here general words follow specific words in an enumeration describing the legal subject, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words." Dickson v. Riverside Iron Works, Inc., 6 Mass. App. Ct. 53, 55-56 (1978), quoting 2A Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.17 (4th ed. 1973).

2009As the court states, we are guided in our interpretation by “the intent of the Legislature ascertained from all its words construed by the ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered in connection with the cause of its enactment, the mischief or imperfection to be remedied and the main object to be accomplished.” Hanlon v. Rollins, 286 Mass. 444, 447 (1934).

2005Compare note 16, infra, and Banushi v. Dorfman, 438 Mass. at 244-245 ; Santos v. Bettencourt, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 90, 92-93 (1996); and Osorno v. Simone, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 612, 615-618 (2002) (all restricting the generality of the term “building” by reference to the specific words in a series under the doctrine of ejusdem generis).

1996Haas v. Breton, 377 Mass. 591, 595 (1979) (“ ‘A general term in a statute or ordinance takes meaning from the setting in which it is employed.

1971See, for example, People v. Thomas, 25 Cal. 2d 880, 899 , where the Supreme Court of California observed that, “In construing criminal statutes the ejusdem generis rule of construction is applied with stringency.” Consistent with the above interpretation also are both the use of the word “depository” and the title of the statute.

1971See, for example, People v. Thomas, 25 Cal.2d 880, 899 , where the Supreme Court of California observed that, "In construing criminal statutes the ejusdem generis rule of construction is applied with stringency." Consistent with the above interpretation also are both the use of the word "depository" and the title of the statute.