ejusdem generis rule in Washington

2014Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, “specific words or terms modify and restrict the interpretation of general words or terms where both are used in sequence.” State v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, 81 Wn.2d 259, 279 , 501 P.2d 290 (1972) (citing King County Water Dist.

2014Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, “specific words or terms modify and restrict the interpretation of general words or terms where both are used in sequence.” State v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, 81 Wn.2d 259, 279 , 501 P.2d 290 (1972) (citing King County Water Dist.

2014Relying on the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction, the Supreme Court held that the phrase " 'board, housing, fuel, or other consideration of like nature'" means "readily identifiable and reasonably calculable in-kind components of a worker's lost earning capacity at the time of injury that are critical to protecting workers' basic health and survival." Cockle, 142 Wn.2d at 822 (quoting RCW 51.08.178(1)).

2014Hale, 165 Wn.2d at 506 . ¶23 In Cockle, the Washington State Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the statutory language “board, housing, fuel, or other consideration of like nature” to determine whether the value of employer-provided health care coverage should be used to calculate compensation payments under RCW 51.08.178(1). ¶24 Relying on the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction, the Supreme Court held that the phrase “ ‘board, housing, fuel, or other consideration of like nature’ ” means “readily identifiable and reasonably calculable in-kind components of a worker’s lost ea

2014Reading the statute as a whole and applying the ejusdem generis rule, the Malo court refused to construe it as providing a remedy against any person whatsoever, but held that it was directed not only at employers but also at entities functionally similar to employers who discriminate by engaging in conduct similar to discharging or expelling a person who has opposed practices forbidden by RCW 49.60. 92 Wn.

2014Id. ¶53 Here, Kadlec’s Emergency Department call coverage agreement had provided at its article V that in performing services under the agreement, Dr. Sambasivan was acting as an independent contractor, a relationship that was held in Marquis to be subject to the protections of chapter 49.60 RCW.

2014No. 68 v. Tax Com’n, 58 Wn.2d 282, 286 , 362 P.2d 244 (1961)).

2014No. 68 v. Tax Com’n, 58 Wn.2d 282, 286 , 362 P.2d 244 (1961)).

2012In our view, "res gestae" evidence is so unlike the expressly listed ER 404(b) exceptions that considering "res gestae" evidence to be an ER 404(b) exception contravenes the ejusdem generis doctrine. *231 ¶ 21 In our view, "res gestae" evidence more appropriately falls within ER 401's definition of "relevant" evidence, which is generally admissible under ER 402. [21] Compare State v. Lane, 125 Wash.2d 825, 831 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995) ("`res gestae'" evidence "`complete[s] the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place'") ( quoting State v. T

2012In our view, "res gestae" evidence is so unlike the expressly listed ER 404(b) exceptions that considering "res gestae" evidence to be an ER 404(b) exception contravenes the ejusdem generis doctrine. *231 ¶ 21 In our view, "res gestae" evidence more appropriately falls within ER 401's definition of "relevant" evidence, which is generally admissible under ER 402. [21] Compare State v. Lane, 125 Wash.2d 825, 831 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995) ("`res gestae'" evidence "`complete[s] the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place'") ( quoting State v. T

2012App. 713, 725 , 77 P.3d 681 (2003), review denied, 151 Wn.2d 1039 (2004). ¶20 In our view, and as other courts and legal scholars have noted, this judicially created “res gestae” exception bears little or no resemblance to the specific exceptions that ER 404(b) enumerates, 19 inviting contemplation of the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction: 20 [W]hen a general word or phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same type as those-listed. • For example, in the phrase horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, or any other

2012But we depart from characterizing this "res gestae" evidence as an exception to ER 404(b), despite our state courts' recognition of "a res gestae or `same transaction' exception" [18] to ER 404(b) if the evidence is admitted "to complete the crime story by establishing the immediate time and place of its occurrence." Hughes, 118 Wash. App. at 725, 77 P.3d 681 , review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1039 , 95 P.3d 758 (2004). ¶ 20 In our view, and as other courts and legal scholars have noted, this judicially created "res gestae" exception bears little or no resemblance to the specific exceptions that ER

2012In our view, "res gestae" evidence is so unlike the expressly listed ER 404(b) exceptions that considering "res gestae" evidence to be an ER 404(b) exception contravenes the ejusdem generis doctrine. *231 ¶ 21 In our view, "res gestae" evidence more appropriately falls within ER 401's definition of "relevant" evidence, which is generally admissible under ER 402. [21] Compare State v. Lane, 125 Wash.2d 825, 831 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995) ("`res gestae'" evidence "`complete[s] the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place'") ( quoting State v. T

2012In our view, "res gestae" evidence is so unlike the expressly listed ER 404(b) exceptions that considering "res gestae" evidence to be an ER 404(b) exception contravenes the ejusdem generis doctrine. *231 ¶ 21 In our view, "res gestae" evidence more appropriately falls within ER 401's definition of "relevant" evidence, which is generally admissible under ER 402. [21] Compare State v. Lane, 125 Wash.2d 825, 831 , 889 P.2d 929 (1995) ("`res gestae'" evidence "`complete[s] the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place'") ( quoting State v. T

2012App. 713, 725 , 77 P.3d 681 (2003), review denied, 151 Wn.2d 1039 (2004). ¶20 In our view, and as other courts and legal scholars have noted, this judicially created “res gestae” exception bears little or no resemblance to the specific exceptions that ER 404(b) enumerates, 19 inviting contemplation of the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction: 20 [W]hen a general word or phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same type as those-listed. • For example, in the phrase horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, or any other

2012But we depart from characterizing this "res gestae" evidence as an exception to ER 404(b), despite our state courts' recognition of "a res gestae or `same transaction' exception" [18] to ER 404(b) if the evidence is admitted "to complete the crime story by establishing the immediate time and place of its occurrence." Hughes, 118 Wash. App. at 725, 77 P.3d 681 , review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1039 , 95 P.3d 758 (2004). ¶ 20 In our view, and as other courts and legal scholars have noted, this judicially created "res gestae" exception bears little or no resemblance to the specific exceptions that ER

2008State v. Roadhs, 71 Wash.2d 705, 708 , 430 P.2d 586 (1967), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Wentz, 149 Wash.2d 342, 349 , 68 P.3d 282 (2003) (applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis); Port of Seattle v. Dep't of Revenue, 101 Wash.App. 106, 113 , 1 P.3d 607 (2000).

2008App. 106, 113 , 1 P.3d 607 (2000).

2008State v. Roadhs, 71 Wn.2d 705, 708 , 430 P.2d 586 (1967) (applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Wentz, 149 Wn.2d 342, 349 , 68 P.3d 282 (2003); Port of Seattle v. Dep’t of Revenue, 101 Wn.

2008State v. Roadhs, 71 Wn.2d 705, 708 , 430 P.2d 586 (1967) (applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Wentz, 149 Wn.2d 342, 349 , 68 P.3d 282 (2003); Port of Seattle v. Dep’t of Revenue, 101 Wn.

2008State v. Roadhs, 71 Wash.2d 705, 708 , 430 P.2d 586 (1967), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Wentz, 149 Wash.2d 342, 349 , 68 P.3d 282 (2003) (applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis); Port of Seattle v. Dep't of Revenue, 101 Wash.App. 106, 113 , 1 P.3d 607 (2000).

2008State v. Roadhs, 71 Wn.2d 705, 708 , 430 P.2d 586 (1967) (applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Wentz, 149 Wn.2d 342, 349 , 68 P.3d 282 (2003); Port of Seattle v. Dep’t of Revenue, 101 Wn.

2008State v. Roadhs, 71 Wash.2d 705, 708 , 430 P.2d 586 (1967), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Wentz, 149 Wash.2d 342, 349 , 68 P.3d 282 (2003) (applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis); Port of Seattle v. Dep't of Revenue, 101 Wash.App. 106, 113 , 1 P.3d 607 (2000).

2008State v. Roadhs, 71 Wn.2d 705, 708 , 430 P.2d 586 (1967) (applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Wentz, 149 Wn.2d 342, 349 , 68 P.3d 282 (2003); Port of Seattle v. Dep’t of Revenue, 101 Wn.

2008State v. Roadhs, 71 Wash.2d 705, 708 , 430 P.2d 586 (1967), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Wentz, 149 Wash.2d 342, 349 , 68 P.3d 282 (2003) (applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis); Port of Seattle v. Dep't of Revenue, 101 Wash.App. 106, 113 , 1 P.3d 607 (2000).

2008State v. Roadhs, 71 Wn.2d 705, 708 , 430 P.2d 586 (1967) (applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Wentz, 149 Wn.2d 342, 349 , 68 P.3d 282 (2003); Port of Seattle v. Dep’t of Revenue, 101 Wn.

2007But it could also reasonably be interpreted as presuming that the firing mechanism, the ammunition supply device, and the firing speed are inherent in machine guns, mechanical rifles, and submachine guns, and that any other device with these characteristics is also a machine gun. ¶24 The doctrine of ejusdem generis “ ‘requires that general terms appearing in a statute in connection with specific terms are to be given meaning and effect only to the extent that the general terms suggest items similar to those designated by the specific terms.’ ” City of Seattle v. State, 136 Wn.2d 693, 699 , 965

2007But it could also reasonably be interpreted as presuming that the firing mechanism, the ammunition supply device, and the firing speed are inherent in machine guns, mechanical rifles, and submachine guns, and that any other device with these characteristics is also a machine gun. ¶ 24 The doctrine of ejusdem generis "`requires that general terms appearing in a statute in connection with specific terms are to be given meaning and effect only to the extent that the general terms suggest items similar to those designated by the specific terms.'" City of Seattle v. State, 136 Wash.2d 693, 699 , 96

2007Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794, 800 , 808 P.2d 746 (1991)).

2007Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794, 800 , 808 P.2d 746 (1991)).

2001The Court of Appeals correctly rejected the "any and all forms of consideration" standard in Rose v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 57 Wash.App. 751, 758 , 790 P.2d 201 , review denied, 115 Wash.2d 1010 , 797 P.2d 512 (1990).

2001The Court of Appeals correctly rejected the “any and all forms of consideration” standard in Rose v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 57 Wn.

2001Each is a necessity of life, without which the injured worker cannot survive[ [11] ] a period of even temporary disability." 96 Wash.App. at 74 , 977 P.2d 668 . [12] We would modify that analysis only slightly.

2001Each is a necessity of life, without which the injured worker cannot survive[ 11 ] a period of even temporary disability.” 96 Wn.

2000Rainier, 96 Wash.2d at 674 , 638 P.2d 575 . *748 Rainier 's holding left open the question presented by the case at bar.

2000Rainier, 96 Wn.2d at 674 .

1998That would exclude public entities." Sullivan, 839 P.2d at 231 .

1998That would exclude public entities.” Sullivan, 839 P.2d at 231 .

1998Westwood Homeowners Ass'n, 864 P.2d at 359-60 .

1998Westwood Homeowners Ass’n, 864 P.2d at 359-61 .

1986State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 81 Wn.2d 259, 279 , 501 P.2d 290 (1972), appeal dismissed, 411 U.S. 945 (1973); Dean v. McFarland, 81 Wn.2d 215, 219 , 500 P.2d 1244 , 74 A.L.R.3d 378 (1972).

1983See, e.g., State v. Stockton, supra at 530; State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 81 Wn.2d 259, 279 , 501 P.2d 290 (1972), appeal dismissed, 411 U.S. 945 (1973); Dean v. McFarland, 81 Wn.2d 215, 221 , 500 P.2d 1244 (1972).

2024Id. at 883-84 (quoting State v. Thompson, 38 Wn.2d 774, 777 , 232 P.2d 87 (1951)).