3 ms·
The decision [1] includes the court's full justification for setting aside ejusdem generis, starting at the bottom of page 20. As I understand it: The short an
by jffry 4y ago
The decision [1] includes the court's full justification for setting aside ejusdem generis, starting at the bottom of page 20.
As I understand it: The short answer is the legislature changed the statutory definition on more than one occasion where it can be shown they were aware of the broader interpretation of that clause being in use and took no action to narrow it. This, according to the decision, establishes legislative intent for the broad interpretation, which supersedes ejusdem generis.
[1] https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C093542.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C093542.PDF
- rayiner 4y agoRead the legislative history discussion at 10-13. The DNR expressly asked the Legislature to add “invertebrates.” The legislature included it in a draft bill, but deleted that language in the final bill. The legislative history seems to confirm that invertebrates are excluded.