Definition
Latin: "of the same kind or nature." A canon of statutory and contractual construction providing that when general words or phrases follow an enumeration of specific persons, things, or categories, the general words are limited in scope to the same class or kind as the specific items that precede them. The rule prevents a broad, catch-all term from swallowing the specific enumeration that introduced it.
Example: A statute regulating "horses, cattle, sheep, and other animals" would not, under ejusdem generis, extend to wild game or household pets — the general phrase "other animals" is confined to the class of domesticated livestock suggested by the specific list.
Common Language
Wiktionary: "A canon of construction holding that when a general term follows a list of particular terms, the general term only applies to things similar to the particular terms. For example, in the list 'sun, moon, and other large objects,' the phrase 'other large objects' only includes celestial bodies, not houses and elephants."
Editorial note: Ejusdem generis is pure legal Latin with no separate common usage — but the Wiktionary definition is unusually accurate here and serves as a fair lay description. The legal researcher's caution is different: the rule is a canon, not a command. Courts treat it as a rebuttable presumption, and its application depends heavily on whether the specific terms share a coherent unifying class. When the enumerated items lack a discernible common thread, ejusdem generis loses its grip entirely.
Common Confusion
Ejusdem generis is frequently conflated with two related canons:
Noscitur a sociis ("known by its associates"): Both rules use surrounding context to limit word meaning, but noscitur a sociis applies to any ambiguous word illuminated by its neighbors — it does not require the specific list-followed-by-general-term structure that ejusdem generis demands.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("expression of one thing excludes others"): Where ejusdem generis asks what the general term includes, expressio unius asks what was left out of the specific list altogether. The two canons can point in opposite directions and courts sometimes must choose between them.
Why It Matters in Research
Ejusdem generis is a living canon — its application is contested in modern statutory interpretation debates, particularly between textualist and purposivist approaches. Researchers should be alert to several navigational issues:
The unifying-class problem. The canon only works if the specific terms share an identifiable common genus. When courts disagree on what genus the list implies, ejusdem generis arguments become circular. Research into how a court has characterized the "class" is often as important as finding the canon itself invoked.
Contract versus statute. The canon applies to both statutory and contractual instruments, but its weight differs. In contract disputes, the surrounding circumstances and party intent remain in play in ways they may not be in pure statutory construction. Historical sources tend to address statutory construction; contract applications may require separate searching.
The canon wars. Post-Scalia textualism elevated ejusdem generis within the statutory interpretation toolkit, while purposivists argue the canon can frustrate legislative intent. Corpus linguistics scholarship now sometimes competes with ejusdem generis arguments by examining ordinary meaning at the time of drafting. Researchers working in post-2000 federal materials should track which interpretive methodology the court is deploying.
Legislative drafting as a counter-signal. Modern drafters sometimes add "including but not limited to" or "without limitation" before general terms specifically to defeat ejusdem generis. The presence or absence of such language in the instrument under review is a threshold question.
Connection to Anderson's cross-references. Anderson directs readers to GENERAL, INFERIOR, OTHER, and VEHICLE — these entries in the corpus illuminate how courts applied the canon to specific recurring statutory terms and are worth pulling alongside the ejusdem generis entry itself.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical sources converge cleanly on the core rule. Rapalje & Lawrence offers the most practical framing: "general words following an enumeration of particulars are to have their generality limited by reference to the preceding particular enumeration." Black's 2nd Edition sharpens this slightly, specifying that the general words "are not to be construed in their widest extent" — a phrasing that captures the anti-expansive thrust of the canon.
Burrill provides only the bare Latin translation and period citations (Powell on Devises, Atkins), useful for tracing the canon into equity and property contexts but offering no analytical content. Anderson is notable for explicitly extending the rule beyond statutes to "contracts, and other instruments," a broader reach that Black's 1st Edition states more narrowly and that practitioners should not assume all courts will accept without question.
What the historical sources miss: None of the shelf sources address the threshold requirement that the specific terms must share a coherent genus before the canon applies — an issue that dominates modern case law. They also say nothing about the canon's relationship to competing canons or its role in the broader interpretive methodology debates that define contemporary statutory construction. Researchers relying solely on these definitions will have the rule's form but not its limits.
Jurisdictional Note
Ejusdem generis is recognized across federal and state courts and in most common law jurisdictions internationally. Application varies in intensity: some jurisdictions treat it as a strong presumption; others as merely one tool among many, easily displaced by contrary evidence of legislative intent. Federal administrative law adds another layer — the canon may apply differently when a court is reviewing an agency's construction of a statute the agency administers.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Canons of Statutory Construction; Statutory Interpretation — Textual Canons.