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.
6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Eckhardtgreen1 sentence1925See, also, The State v. Eckhardt, 232 Mo. 49 .) In Drainage Commission of New Orleans v. National Contracting Co. of New York, 136 Fed. 780 , it was said: “The rule ejusdem generis, the rule exclusio unius, the rule invoked in this case that ‘the particular governs the general,’ and perhaps other rules still, are mere subordinate and auxiliary formulas intended to assist in the application of the basic rule that the intent of the parties governs. | 1 | 1 |
Drainage Commission v. National Contracting Co.green1 sentence1925See, also, The State v. Eckhardt, 232 Mo. 49 .) In Drainage Commission of New Orleans v. National Contracting Co. of New York, 136 Fed. 780 , it was said: “The rule ejusdem generis, the rule exclusio unius, the rule invoked in this case that ‘the particular governs the general,’ and perhaps other rules still, are mere subordinate and auxiliary formulas intended to assist in the application of the basic rule that the intent of the parties governs. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Moler
green
2 sentences2020State v. Moler, 269 Kan. 362, 363 , 2 P.3d 773 (2000). 2020State v. Moler, 269 Kan. 362, 363 , 2 P.3d 773 (2000). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Sanchez
green
1 sentence2000Rejecting the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction, the Sanchez court found that the office located in the hospital fell within the scope of “other structure” in the burglary statute. 105 N.M. at 621-22 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Foulenfont
green
1 sentence2000The Foulenfont court used the strict construction rule for interpreting the burglary statute, modified its prior rejection of the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction, and noted that entry into a subunit of a building satisfies the statute but entry into a fenced enclosure outside the building does not. 119 N.M. at 791-92 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Trego WaKeeney State Bank v. Maier
green
2 sentences1977What the court did was to apply the familiar doctrine of ejusdem generis, explained in Trego WaKeeney State Bank v. Maier, 214 Kan. 169 , 519 P. 2d 743 , as follows: “The rule of ejusdem generis is a well known maxim of construction to aid in ascertaining the meaning of a statute or other written instrument which is ambiguous. 1977What the court did was to apply the familiar doctrine of ejusdem generis, explained in Trego WaKeeney State Bank v. Maier, 214 Kan. 169 , 519 P. 2d 743 , as follows: “The rule of ejusdem generis is a well known maxim of construction to aid in ascertaining the meaning of a statute or other written instrument which is ambiguous. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Livingston v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1970(Livingston v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 295 F. Supp. 1122 [D. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Prather
neutral
2 sentences1952In support she relies on The State v. Prather, 79 Kan. 513 , 100 Pac. 57 , where it was said: “The doctrine of ejusdem generis is applied in all cases where there is doubt as to the intention of the legislature, and, as a rule of statutory construction, is stated to be that where general words follow particular ones in a statute the general words will be limited in their meaning, or restricted to things of like kind and nature with those specified.” (1. c. 516.) and where it was held that the statute now appearing as G. 1952In support she relies on The State v. Prather, 79 Kan. 513 , 100 Pac. 57 , where it was said: “The doctrine of ejusdem generis is applied in all cases where there is doubt as to the intention of the legislature, and, as a rule of statutory construction, is stated to be that where general words follow particular ones in a statute the general words will be limited in their meaning, or restricted to things of like kind and nature with those specified.” (1. c. 516.) and where it was held that the statute now appearing as G. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
United States Cement Co. v. Cooper
green
1 sentence1925In 2 Words and Phrases, 226, it is said: “The doctrine of ejusdem generis is only a rule of construction to be applied as an aid in ascertaining the legislative intent, and does not control where it clearly appears from, the statute as a whole that no such limitation was intended, nor does it apply where the specific words of a statute signify subjects greatly different from another, nor where the specific words embrace all objects of their class, so that the general words must bear a different meaning from the specific words or be meaningless.” In United States Cement Co. v. Cooper, 172 Ind. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.