What is the difference between ejusdem generis and

noscitur a sociis in law?

Robert Charles Lee, Printbroker, financial printer, non-practising lawyer

The simplest way to explain the difference is this (plus one more for bonus):—

1. Ejusdem generis (Latin ‘of the same kind’) is for interpreting loosely written
statutes (legislation).
2. Noscitur a sociis (Latin ‘recognised by its partners’) is for
interpreting questionable words in statutes.
3. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (Latin ‘expresion of one is the exclusion of
another) is for interpreting what items are excluded in a legal text.
You and I might think a sloppy statute would also have questionable words in it — since
one without questionable words wouldn’t be a sloppy statute. Alas! this isn’t the case in
law and statutory interpretation.

Ejusdem generis

In layman’s language, a list talks about the same kind of things and doesn’t
include stuff that’s different in essential nature.

If the statute lists specific classes of things and then refers to them in general, the
general statements apply only to the same kind of things that were specifically
listed.

In other words, a general term after a list of particular terms is only about those things
similar to the particular terms.

For instance, “the sun, moon and other large objects” — the “other large objects” part
can only include heavenly bodies but not mountains, houses or large animals.

Update:— Back in law school, we used to have this memory-aid: Ejusdem

Noscitur a sociis

In layman’s language, we could say the thing should fit in with the realistic
nature of those other things.
Update:— The memory aid is:— Noscitur sounds like “No shit” — “No shit, it’s gotta be
realistically like the same kind.”

The meaning of a doubtful word can be known from the accompanying words, or from
its association with other words.

In other words, the surrounding usage of words can reveal the meaning (therefore
intent) of the questionable words or phrases.

For instance in the English case of Foster v. Diphwys [1887] 18 QBD 428, a statute
stated that explosives taken into a mine must be in a “case or cannister.” The defendant
instead used a cloth bag. The court ruled that a cloth bag WASN’T within the statutory
definition because the statute intended that the container should have the same strength
as a case or cannister — and a cloth bag didn’t have that strength.

Since I’m on the topic, I might as well give you the third one too:—

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

(Latin, expression of one is the exclusion of another)

In layman’s language, if the list doesn’t include, it means it was deliberately

When a list appears in any legal document, anything NOT on that list is assumed to be
excluded on purpose.

In other words, a list is pretty much self-contained. If it doesn’t contain a certain item,
the necessary assumption is that the list deliberately didn’t include that certain item.

(Answered Jan 17, 2017)

UPDATE:—

Comment:— Are these the logic that you have to learn to interpret laws?

Answer:— Yeah, unfortunately. Those come within the first four weeks of Year 1 in
law school.

2.6k Views · 11 Upvotes

Promoted by examIam

Where can I find free LSAT practice tests?

examIam has PrepTests 75 - 79 plus the free June 2007 LSAT available online and in their app.
Sign up at examiam.com/lsat

Related QuestionsMore Answers Below

 What's the difference between civil law and common law?

Ani Ravi, Corporate Lawyer in New York, Harvard Law School '11
Answered Jan 18 2017 · Upvoted by Andrew Marks, lurker
They are very similar, but in theory the difference is that:

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”.

1.4k Views · 4 Upvotes

Ad Cautelam

You will even see pleadings like “Answer Ad Cautelam” or a “Manifestation Ad Cautelam.” What are these
things? It just means that your lawyers are filing something “for caution” so as not to forestall something
for you. For example, an “Answer Ad Cautelam” may be filed if your lawyer thinks his motion for extension
of time may be arbitrarily denied or if he is still questioning the jurisdiction of the court, but does not want
you to be defaulted for failing to file an answer within the time allowed. Strictly speaking, such pleadings
are not expressly provided for in the Rules.