Difference between noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis
Answers
Answered by
2
eiusdem generis qualifies general items in a list in the context of specific items in that same list - e.g., if I had a list consisting of “Saab 9000, Saab 900, Saab 9–3, Saab 9–5 and any other Saab vehicle”, using eiusdem generis you would say that “any other Saab vehicle” referred to any other Saab automobile, and would not refer to the Saab 35 Draken jet fighter. For an example used in a US Supreme Court case, see McBoyle v. US, 283 U.S. 25 (1931), where the court construed the term “Motor Vehicle”, which was defined in the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, as follows: “The term ‘motor vehicle’ shall include an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motor cycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle not designed for running on rails.” In McBoyle, the court found that an airplane was not a “motor vehicle” as defined above, as even though an airplane is a “self-propelled vehicle not designed for running on rails”, that general description must be construed to fit with the specific items on that list, and therefore is only meant to pick up other cars and land vehicles.
noscitur a sociis qualifies any items in a list in the context of the document or statute as a whole - e.g., in the context of the Board and Card Games Act I might say “the term ‘activity’ means any board game, card game, or any other competitive pursuit”. In this context, you would apply noscitur a sociis to say that “any other competitive pursuit” should not refer to MMA fighting or Formula 1 racing. For a US Supreme Court example, see Gustafson v. Alloyd Company, Inc., 513 U.S. 561 (1991), which construed the term “prospectus”, which was defined in the Securities Act as follows: “[t]he term ‘prospectus’ means any prospectus, notice, circular, advertisement, letter or communication, written or by radio or television, which offers any security for sale or confirms the sale of any security.” The court in Gustafson interpreted “communication” in the definition of “prospectus” as limited by the context of the Securities Act, and the way that the word “prospectus” was used elsewhere in the statue, and found that the term “communication” in that context referred to “a document soliciting the public to acquire securities”, and not to “any written communication offering a security for sale”.
In practice they are used in similar ways and the difference does not really matter - ultimately all canons of construction are just tools that help us understand the meaning of text, and it does not matter whether the interpretive tool is one arcane pseudo-Latin phrase or another, what matters is whether the interpretation is compelling. Moreover, you can use canons of construction to say just about anything - every canon has another canon that opposes it. See Karl Llewellyn’s classic, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes are to be Construed, a/k/a, “Thrust and Parry”, where he shows that for each canon that can be used in one way - i.e., a “thrust”, there is another canon to rebut it - i.e., a “parry”.
noscitur a sociis qualifies any items in a list in the context of the document or statute as a whole - e.g., in the context of the Board and Card Games Act I might say “the term ‘activity’ means any board game, card game, or any other competitive pursuit”. In this context, you would apply noscitur a sociis to say that “any other competitive pursuit” should not refer to MMA fighting or Formula 1 racing. For a US Supreme Court example, see Gustafson v. Alloyd Company, Inc., 513 U.S. 561 (1991), which construed the term “prospectus”, which was defined in the Securities Act as follows: “[t]he term ‘prospectus’ means any prospectus, notice, circular, advertisement, letter or communication, written or by radio or television, which offers any security for sale or confirms the sale of any security.” The court in Gustafson interpreted “communication” in the definition of “prospectus” as limited by the context of the Securities Act, and the way that the word “prospectus” was used elsewhere in the statue, and found that the term “communication” in that context referred to “a document soliciting the public to acquire securities”, and not to “any written communication offering a security for sale”.
In practice they are used in similar ways and the difference does not really matter - ultimately all canons of construction are just tools that help us understand the meaning of text, and it does not matter whether the interpretive tool is one arcane pseudo-Latin phrase or another, what matters is whether the interpretation is compelling. Moreover, you can use canons of construction to say just about anything - every canon has another canon that opposes it. See Karl Llewellyn’s classic, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes are to be Construed, a/k/a, “Thrust and Parry”, where he shows that for each canon that can be used in one way - i.e., a “thrust”, there is another canon to rebut it - i.e., a “parry”.
Answered by
0
Both those are words are of constitutional theory and related to the statutory construction of laws and also of the formation of contractual records.
The simplest way to describe the difference is
1. Ejusdem Generis in Latin is known as ‘of the same kind’ is for translating loosely drafted ordinances or legislation.
2. Noscitur a sociis in Latin is known as ‘ recognized by its partners’ is used for performing controversial words in statutes.
3. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius in Latin is known as ‘expression of one is the exclusion of another which is used for describing what things are prohibited in a legal text.
Similar questions