noscitur a sociis doctrine in Michigan

2009Ass'n, 448 Mich. 22, 27 , 528 N.W.2d 681 (1995). [13] Id. at 236 , 596 N.W.2d 119 , citing Luttrell v. Dep't of Corrections, 421 Mich. 93 , 365 N.W.2d 74 (1984). [14] Crary v. Marquette Circuit Judge, 197 Mich. 452, 454 , 163 N.W. 905 (1917). [15] Random House Webster's College Dictionary (2001). [16] Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of an unclear word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it.

2001Tryc v Michigan Veterans’ Facility, 451 Mich 129, 135 ; 545 NW2d 642 (1996). [Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236 ; 596 NW2d 119 (1999).] “Contextual understanding of statutes is generally grounded in the doctrine of noscitur a sociis: ‘[i]t is known from its associates,’ see Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed), p 1060.

2005As a general matter, “words and clauses will not be divorced from those which precede and those which follow.” Sanchick v State Bd of Optometry, 342 Mich 555, 559 ; 70 NW2d 757 (1955).

2005As a general matter, “words and clauses will not be divorced from those which precede and those which follow.” Sanchick v State Bd of Optometry, 342 Mich 555, 559 ; 70 NW2d 757 (1955).

2009Ass'n, 448 Mich. 22, 27 , 528 N.W.2d 681 (1995). [13] Id. at 236 , 596 N.W.2d 119 , citing Luttrell v. Dep't of Corrections, 421 Mich. 93 , 365 N.W.2d 74 (1984). [14] Crary v. Marquette Circuit Judge, 197 Mich. 452, 454 , 163 N.W. 905 (1917). [15] Random House Webster's College Dictionary (2001). [16] Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of an unclear word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it.

2009Ass'n, 448 Mich. 22, 27 , 528 N.W.2d 681 (1995). [13] Id. at 236 , 596 N.W.2d 119 , citing Luttrell v. Dep't of Corrections, 421 Mich. 93 , 365 N.W.2d 74 (1984). [14] Crary v. Marquette Circuit Judge, 197 Mich. 452, 454 , 163 N.W. 905 (1917). [15] Random House Webster's College Dictionary (2001). [16] Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of an unclear word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it.

2012When discerning legislative intent, a particular word in one statutory section must be interpreted in conjunction with every other section, “so as to produce, if possible, a harmonious and consistent enactment as a whole.” Grand Rapids v Crocker, 219 Mich 178, 183 ; 189 NW 221 (1922); see also G C Timmis & Co v Guardian Alarm Co, 468 Mich 416 420 ; 662 NW2d 710 (2003) (invoking as a statutory interpreta tion aid the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, “i.e., that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2012When discerning legislative intent, a particular word in one statutory section must be interpreted in conjunction with every other section, “so as to produce, if possible, a harmonious and consistent enactment as a whole.” Grand Rapids v Crocker, 219 Mich 178, 183 ; 189 NW 221 (1922); see also G C Timmis & Co v Guardian Alarm Co, 468 Mich 416 420 ; 662 NW2d 710 (2003) (invoking as a statutory interpreta tion aid the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, “i.e., that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2004Accordingly, the trial court did not err by refusing to reduce the amount of future damages to present value. [Shinholster, supra at 356-357 .] The doctrine of noscitur a sociis, i.e., that “a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting,” affords us some assistance in interpreting § 6311.

2004Accordingly, the trial court did not err by refusing to reduce the amount of future damages to present value. [ Shinholster, supra at 356-357 .] The doctrine of noscitur a sociis, i.e., that “a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting,” affords us some assistance in interpreting § 6311.

2001Tryc v Michigan Veterans’ Facility, 451 Mich 129, 135 ; 545 NW2d 642 (1996). [Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236 ; 596 NW2d 119 (1999).] “Contextual understanding of statutes is generally grounded in the doctrine of noscitur a sociis: ‘[i]t is known from its associates,’ see Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed), p 1060.

2001Tryc v Michigan Veterans’ Facility, 451 Mich 129, 135 ; 545 NW2d 642 (1996). [Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236 ; 596 NW2d 119 (1999).] “Contextual understanding of statutes is generally grounded in the doctrine of noscitur a sociis: ‘[i]t is known from its associates,’ see Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed), p 1060.

2026If we are to infer anything from this silence, it should be that the Hartman Court failed to consider the context in which “ward” was used in the policy at issue in that case, making Hartman’s reasoning unpersuasive. 3 The majority attempts to bolster its preferred definition of “ward” by citing to Serra v Estate of Broughton, 364 P3d 637 ; 2015 OK 82 (2015), but the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Serra explicitly declined to adopt a definition of “ward.” See id. at 642 (“We need not decide what a precise definition of ‘ward’ should be.”).

2026If we are to infer anything from this silence, it should be that the Hartman Court failed to consider the context in which “ward” was used in the policy at issue in that case, making Hartman’s reasoning unpersuasive. 3 The majority attempts to bolster its preferred definition of “ward” by citing to Serra v Estate of Broughton, 364 P3d 637 ; 2015 OK 82 (2015), but the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Serra explicitly declined to adopt a definition of “ward.” See id. at 642 (“We need not decide what a precise definition of ‘ward’ should be.”).

2026The canon especially holds that words grouped in a list should be given related meanings.” Atlantic Cas Ins Co v Gustafson, 315 Mich App 533, 541 ; 891 NW2d 499 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026The canon especially holds that words grouped in a list should be given related meanings.” Atlantic Cas Ins Co v Gustafson, 315 Mich App 533, 541 ; 891 NW2d 499 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025To give undefined terms meaning, we must read and construe a contract as a whole, Smith v Smith, 292 Mich App 699, 702 ; 823 NW2d 114 (2011), and, under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, give words or phrases meaning within their context or setting, Bloomfield Estates Improvement Ass’n, Inc v Birmingham, 479 Mich 206, 215 ; 737 NW2d 670 (2007).

2025To give undefined terms meaning, we must read and construe a contract as a whole, Smith v Smith, 292 Mich App 699, 702 ; 823 NW2d 114 (2011), and, under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, give words or phrases meaning within their context or setting, Bloomfield Estates Improvement Ass’n, Inc v Birmingham, 479 Mich 206, 215 ; 737 NW2d 670 (2007).

2013Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 472 Mich 521, 533 ; 697 NW2d 895 (2005), citing Third Nat’l Bank in Nashville v Impac Ltd, Inc, 432 US 312, 322 ; 97 S Ct 2307 ; 53 L Ed 2d 368 (1977).

2013Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 472 Mich 521, 533 ; 697 NW2d 895 (2005), citing Third Nat’l Bank in Nashville v Impac Ltd, Inc, 432 US 312, 322 ; 97 S Ct 2307 ; 53 L Ed 2d 368 (1977).

2010“In other words, this Court applies the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, which ‘stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context of setting.’” Id. (citation omitted).

2010“In other words, this Court applies the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, which ‘stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context of setting.’ ” Id. (citation omitted).

2010Therefore, as this Court explained in Cassidy, 415 Mich at 503 : In determining the seriousness of the injury required for a “serious impairment of body function”, this threshold should be considered in conjunction with the other threshold requirements for a tort action for noneconomic loss, namely, death and permanent serious disfigurement.

2010Therefore, as this Court explained in Cassidy, 415 Mich at 503 : In determining the seriousness of the injury required for a “serious impairment of body function”, this threshold should be considered in conjunction with the other threshold requirements for a tort action for noneconomic loss, namely, death and permanent serious disfigurement.

2009Ass'n, 448 Mich. 22, 27 , 528 N.W.2d 681 (1995). [13] Id. at 236 , 596 N.W.2d 119 , citing Luttrell v. Dep't of Corrections, 421 Mich. 93 , 365 N.W.2d 74 (1984). [14] Crary v. Marquette Circuit Judge, 197 Mich. 452, 454 , 163 N.W. 905 (1917). [15] Random House Webster's College Dictionary (2001). [16] Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of an unclear word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it.

2009Ass'n, 448 Mich. 22, 27 , 528 N.W.2d 681 (1995). [13] Id. at 236 , 596 N.W.2d 119 , citing Luttrell v. Dep't of Corrections, 421 Mich. 93 , 365 N.W.2d 74 (1984). [14] Crary v. Marquette Circuit Judge, 197 Mich. 452, 454 , 163 N.W. 905 (1917). [15] Random House Webster's College Dictionary (2001). [16] Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of an unclear word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it.

2009People v Couzens, 480 Mich 240, 250 ; 747 NW2d 849 (2008).

2009People v Couzens, 480 Mich 240, 250 ; 747 NW2d 849 (2008).

2009People v. Couzens, 480 Mich. 240, 250 , 747 N.W.2d 849 (2008). [17] Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 442 Mich. 201, 209 , 501 N.W.2d 76 (1993). [18] Justice Markman would hold medical providers responsible for a proration of attorney fees.

2009People v. Couzens, 480 Mich. 240, 250 , 747 N.W.2d 849 (2008). [17] Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 442 Mich. 201, 209 , 501 N.W.2d 76 (1993). [18] Justice Markman would hold medical providers responsible for a proration of attorney fees.

2009Ass'n, 448 Mich. 22, 27 , 528 N.W.2d 681 (1995). [13] Id. at 236 , 596 N.W.2d 119 , citing Luttrell v. Dep't of Corrections, 421 Mich. 93 , 365 N.W.2d 74 (1984). [14] Crary v. Marquette Circuit Judge, 197 Mich. 452, 454 , 163 N.W. 905 (1917). [15] Random House Webster's College Dictionary (2001). [16] Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of an unclear word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it.

2009Ass'n, 448 Mich. 22, 27 , 528 N.W.2d 681 (1995). [13] Id. at 236 , 596 N.W.2d 119 , citing Luttrell v. Dep't of Corrections, 421 Mich. 93 , 365 N.W.2d 74 (1984). [14] Crary v. Marquette Circuit Judge, 197 Mich. 452, 454 , 163 N.W. 905 (1917). [15] Random House Webster's College Dictionary (2001). [16] Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of an unclear word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it.

2005This doctrine is premised on the notion that “the meaning of statutory language, plain or not, depends on context.” King v St Vincent’s Hosp, 502 US 215, 221 ; 112 S Ct 570 ; 116 L Ed 2d 578 (1991). 9 Thus, under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, “ ‘ “ a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or a setting.” ’ ” Koontz, supra at 318 (citations omitted).

2005This doctrine is premised on the notion that “the meaning of statutory language, plain or not, depends on context.” King v St Vincent’s Hosp, 502 US 215, 221 ; 112 S Ct 570 ; 116 L Ed 2d 578 (1991). 9 Thus, under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, “ ‘ “ a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or a setting.” ’ ” Koontz, supra at 318 (citations omitted).

2001This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” [Brown v Genesee Co Bd of Comm’rs, 464 Mich 430, 437 ; 628 NW2d 471 (2001) (opinion by Corrigan, C.J.), quoting Tyler v Livonia Public Schools, 459 Mich 382, 390-391 ; 590 NW2d 560 (1999).] Further, this Court may not “read [anything] into the statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as gathered from the [statute] itself.” In re Juvenile Commitment Costs, 240 Mich App 420, 427 ; 613 NW2d 348 (2000).

2001This doctrine stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.” [Brown v Genesee Co Bd of Comm’rs, 464 Mich 430, 437 ; 628 NW2d 471 (2001) (opinion by Corrigan, C.J.), quoting Tyler v Livonia Public Schools, 459 Mich 382, 390-391 ; 590 NW2d 560 (1999).] Further, this Court may not “read [anything] into the statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as gathered from the [statute] itself.” In re Juvenile Commitment Costs, 240 Mich App 420, 427 ; 613 NW2d 348 (2000).