ejusdem generis doctrine in Pennsylvania

2026Under the statutory construction doctrine of ejusdem generis, “where specific terms setting forth enumeration of particular classes of persons or things follow general terms, the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated.” Id.

2023The Commonwealth Court stated that its analysis was “also guided by the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which means ‘of the same kind or class.’” Id. at 472 (quoting Dep’t of Env’t Prot. v. Cumberland Coal Res., LP, 102 A.3d 962, 976 (Pa. 2014)).

2023It follows that, where the statutory language so suggests, a court undertaking an ejusdem generis analysis may recognize that a statutory enumeration contains multiple classes of items, and may determine whether additional items are permissible by ascertaining whether they fall within one of the enumerated categories, 65 Cumberland Coal Res., 102 A.3d at 976 ; McClellan, 686 A.2d at 806 . 66 Weiss v. Swift & Co., 36 Pa. Super. 376, 386-87 (Pa. Super. 1908). [J-55-2022] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 15 i.e., that they are “similar to those listed by the legislature and of the same general class or nature

2006Pursuant to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, “where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated.” McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of Pa., 546 Pa. 463, 473 , 686 A.2d 801, 806 (1996).

2025Article I, Section 8 protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures of their “persons, houses, papers, and possessions.” Our Supreme Court has interpreted the term “possessions,” - 37 - J-A11038-25 pursuant to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, in context with the three preceding terms, all of which generally refer to “intimate things about one’s person.” Commonwealth v. Russo, 594 Pa. 119 , 130–31, 934 A.2d 1199, 1206 (2007).

2025Article I, Section 8 protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures of their “persons, houses, papers, and possessions.” Our Supreme Court has interpreted the term “possessions,” - 37 - J-A11038-25 pursuant to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, in context with the three preceding terms, all of which generally refer to “intimate things about one’s person.” Commonwealth v. Russo, 594 Pa. 119 , 130–31, 934 A.2d 1199, 1206 (2007).

2023The Commonwealth Court stated that its analysis was “also guided by the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which means ‘of the same kind or class.’” Id. at 472 (quoting Dep’t of Env’t Prot. v. Cumberland Coal Res., LP, 102 A.3d 962, 976 (Pa. 2014)).

2023An ejusdem generis analysis also leads me to agree with Justice Mundy that the Agencies exceeded their rulemaking power by enacting 25 Pa. Code §78a.15(f)(1)(vi), which includes “common areas on a school’s property or a playground” as public resources because “they ‘do not share the same attributes as the other public resources identified in [58 Pa.C.S. §3215(c).]’” Dissenting Opinion at 5-6 (Mundy, J.), quoting Marcellus Shale Coalition v. Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 193 A.3d 447, 481 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).

1974Rather than restricting courts and the enforcing authorities solely to narrowly specified types of unfair and deceptive practices, the Legislature wisely declared unlawful "any other fraudulent conduct." This is a common and well-accepted legislative response to the mischief caused by unfair and deceptive market practices. [43] Appellees counter this interpretation of the Consumer Protection Law by an appeal to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which simply means, "`General expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the languag

1974Rather than restricting courts and the enforcing authorities solely to narrowly specified types of unfair and deceptive practices, the Legislature wisely declared unlawful “any other fraudulent conduct.” This is a common and well-accepted legislative response to the mischief caused by unfair and deceptive market practices. 43 Appellees counter this interpretation of the Consumer Protection Law by an appeal to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which simply means, “ ‘General expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the language

2016Moreover, pursuant to the statutory construction doctrine of ejusdem generis (“of the same kind of class”), where general words follow specific enumerated terms, “the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated.” Shire v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (General Motors), 828 A.2d 441, 444 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (quoting Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania v. Board of Assessment Appeals of Fayette County, 814 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. 2002)).

2007The IOGA Court considered the physical nature of oil and gas pursuant to 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(b), which instructs that a statute’s “[gjeneral words shall be construed to take their meanings and be restricted by preceding particular words,” and this Court’s prior interpretation of the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which states that general words of a statute enumerating a particular class should “be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated.” IOGA, 814 A.2d at 184 (citing Steele v. Statesman Ins.

1974Rather than restricting courts and the enforcing authorities solely to narrowly specified types of unfair and deceptive practices, the Legislature wisely declared unlawful "any other fraudulent conduct." This is a common and well-accepted legislative response to the mischief caused by unfair and deceptive market practices. [43] Appellees counter this interpretation of the Consumer Protection Law by an appeal to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which simply means, "`General expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the languag

1974Rather than restricting courts and the enforcing authorities solely to narrowly specified types of unfair and deceptive practices, the Legislature wisely declared unlawful “any other fraudulent conduct.” This is a common and well-accepted legislative response to the mischief caused by unfair and deceptive market practices. 43 Appellees counter this interpretation of the Consumer Protection Law by an appeal to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which simply means, “ ‘General expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the language

2021On appeal, the defendant argued “that under the ejusdem generis rule, the words ‘any other person’ refer to persons in the same class as those enumerated, i.e., licensees or board or any employe, servant or agent of licensee or the board.” Randall, 133 A.2d at 281.

2021On appeal, the defendant argued “that under the ejusdem generis rule, the words ‘any other person’ refer to persons in the same class as those enumerated, i.e., licensees or board or any employe, servant or agent of licensee or the board.” Randall, 133 A.2d at 281 .

2011Summit House Condominium v. Commonwealth, 514 Pa. 221 , 523 A.2d 333, 336 (1987) (quoting Butler Fair and Agricultural Association v. Butler School District, 389 Pa. 169 , 132 A.2d 214, 219 (1957) (“The doctrine of ejusdem generis mandates that ‘[g]eneral expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the language preceding the general expressions.’ ”)).

2011Summit House Condominium v. Commonwealth, 514 Pa. 221 , 523 A.2d 333, 336 (1987) (quoting Butler Fair and Agricultural Association v. Butler School District, 389 Pa. 169 , 132 A.2d 214, 219 (1957) (“The doctrine of ejusdem generis mandates that ‘[g]eneral expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the language preceding the general expressions.’ ”)).

1974Rather than restricting courts and the enforcing authorities solely to narrowly specified types of unfair and deceptive practices, the Legislature wisely declared unlawful "any other fraudulent conduct." This is a common and well-accepted legislative response to the mischief caused by unfair and deceptive market practices. [43] Appellees counter this interpretation of the Consumer Protection Law by an appeal to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which simply means, "`General expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the languag

1974Rather than restricting courts and the enforcing authorities solely to narrowly specified types of unfair and deceptive practices, the Legislature wisely declared unlawful "any other fraudulent conduct." This is a common and well-accepted legislative response to the mischief caused by unfair and deceptive market practices. [43] Appellees counter this interpretation of the Consumer Protection Law by an appeal to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which simply means, "`General expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the languag

2025True, we generally construe catchall provisions based on the nature of the items listed before them. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(b) (“General words shall be construed to take their meanings and be restricted by preceding particular words.”); see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Scott, 176 A.3d 283, 288 (Pa. Super. 2017) (applying the ejusdem generis doctrine).

2023It follows that, where the statutory language so suggests, a court undertaking an ejusdem generis analysis may recognize that a statutory enumeration contains multiple classes of items, and may determine whether additional items are permissible by ascertaining whether they fall within one of the enumerated categories, 65 Cumberland Coal Res., 102 A.3d at 976 ; McClellan, 686 A.2d at 806 . 66 Weiss v. Swift & Co., 36 Pa. Super. 376, 386-87 (Pa. Super. 1908). [J-55-2022] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 15 i.e., that they are “similar to those listed by the legislature and of the same general class or nature

2023As we stated in Commonwealth v. Sitkin’s Junk Co., 194 A.2d 199 (Pa. 1963), “the ejusdem generis rule … yields if the result of its application is to arrive at a conclusion ‘inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature.’” Id. at 203 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023As we stated in Commonwealth v. Sitkin’s Junk Co., 194 A.2d 199 (Pa. 1963), “the ejusdem generis rule … yields if the result of its application is to arrive at a conclusion ‘inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature.’” Id. at 203 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020Accord Nelson, 195 P.3d at 832 (“When a qualifying patient uses medical marijuana in accordance with the MMA, he is 6 The District’s reliance on the ejusdem generis principle to suggest that immunity should apply only to pre-adjudicative measures has lesser force, in our view, in light of the overarching policies underlying the Act.

2016Moreover, pursuant to the statutory construction doctrine of ejusdem generis (“of the same kind of class”), where general words follow specific enumerated terms, “the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated.” Shire v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (General Motors), 828 A.2d 441, 444 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (quoting Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania v. Board of Assessment Appeals of Fayette County, 814 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. 2002)).

2016See also Estate of Ash, supra (holding order authorizing administratrix to sell real estate formerly belonging to decedent was not immediately appealable as collateral order).

2016See generally K.T. v. L.S., 118 A.3d 1136, 1169 (Pa.Super. 2015) (explaining under statutory construction doctrine of ejusdem generis (“of the same kind or class”), where general words follow enumeration of particular classes of - 14 - J-S58033-16 file this interlocutory appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 312.6 According to prevailing law, the order appealed from is also not immediately appealable as a collateral order.7 See Estate of Stricker, supra (explaining that main cause of action in estate case is final administration of estate and distribution of estate property, and order to sell property in pur

2016Our Superior Court has further explained the ejusdem generis doctrine: “when a list of two or more specific descriptors is followed by a more general descriptor, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptor must be restricted to the same general class of the specific descriptors that preceded it.” Commonwealth. v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 54 (Pa. Super. 2014) (emphasis added).

2016Our Superior Court has further explained the ejusdem generis doctrine: “when a list of two or more specific descriptors is followed by a more general descriptor, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptor must be restricted to the same general class of the specific descriptors that preceded it.” Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 54 (Pa. Super. 2014) (emphasis added).

1977Cf., In re Einhorn Bros., Inc., 171 F. Supp. 655, 657-58 (E.D.Pa. 1959), aff'd 272 F. 2d 434 (3d Cir. 1959); see also, Pritchard v. Wick, 406 Pa. 598, 602 , 178 A. 2d 725 (1962).

1977Cf., In re Einhorn Bros., Inc., 171 F. Supp. 655, 657-58 (E.D.Pa. 1959), aff'd 272 F. 2d 434 (3d Cir. 1959); see also, Pritchard v. Wick, 406 Pa. 598, 602 , 178 A. 2d 725 (1962).

1977Cf., In re Einhorn Bros., Inc., 171 F. Supp. 655, 657-58 (E.D.Pa. 1959), aff'd 272 F. 2d 434 (3d Cir. 1959); see also, Pritchard v. Wick, 406 Pa. 598, 602 , 178 A. 2d 725 (1962).