Insight Listing the Canons of Construction

This article was originally published in the May 2016 Edition of The Advocate – the official publication of the Idaho State Bar. Online access to the original version of this article can be found via the Idaho State Bar’s website or via HeinOnline (login required).

The first day of my first job out of law school, I was handed a stack of papers about eight inches tall, and was told to read them over. These papers included sample Complaints, Answers, discovery requests, a few sample motions, and some other things. While most of this was helpful (and admittedly, a bit overwhelming), there is one thing in that stack that I have used over and over again throughout the years: a list of statutory construction principles, along with case cites. I have not been able to figure out who created this list, but whoever created it deserves to be given great credit.

I don’t know whether such checklists are common, but I thought it would be worthwhile to share the wealth. Below is a list of canons of construction based primarily on Idaho caselaw (based in part on the list I was given). This list is by no means exclusive or comprehensive. It is designed primarily to be a quick checklist for use by practitioners. The first few are general principles of statutory construction, followed by a number of specific canons. At the end are some canons that apply to specific areas of law. Due to length, only the list of canons (with relevant citations) is provided here. A version of this article with expanded commentary can be found at: http://isb.idaho.gov/member services/advocate/advocate extra.html

1. Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, courts give effect to the statute as written, without engaging in statutory construction.¹
2. “Only where the language is ambiguous will this Court look to rules of construction for guidance and consider the reasonableness of proposed interpretations.”²
3. Courts, “determine legislative intent by examining not only the literal words of the statute, but also the reasonableness of proposed constructions, the public policy behind the statute, and its legislative history.”³
4. Legislative history can be a guide for statutory construction.⁴
5. Extrinsic aids may be used to interpret an ambiguous statute.⁵
6. “When the language of a statute is ambiguous, [Courts] must consider the social and economic results which would be effectuated by a decision on the meaning of the statute.”⁶
7. Statutes should be given a, “reasonable and practical interpretation, in accord with common sense.”⁷
8. Stare decisis applies to statutory construction.⁸
9. Grammatical rules apply to statutory construction.⁹
10. Ejusdem Generis: “Where general words follow the enumeration of particular class of persons or things, the general words will be construed as applying only to things of the nature enumerated.”¹⁰
11. Noscitur a Sociis: “[A] word is known by the company it keeps.”¹¹
12. “Constructions that would lead to absurd or unreasonably harsh results are disfavored.”¹²
13. “In determining the ordinary meaning of a statute effect must be given to all the words of the statute if possible, so that none will be void, superfluous, or redundant.”¹³
14. Courts, “cannot insert into statutes terms or provisions which are obviously not there.”¹⁴
15. Courts are generally unwilling to correct errors or unanticipated consequences of a given statute.”¹⁵
16. “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”¹⁶
17. If terms are defined in a statute or act, that definition controls construction of those terms.¹⁷
18. Words used in one place in a statute usually have the same meaning in every other place in the statute.¹⁸
19. The words “may” or “should” as used in a statute are permissive. The words “shall” and “must” are mandatory – except when they are not.¹⁹
20. Singular includes plural and vice versa, male includes female and vice versa, etc.²⁰
21. The Legislature is presumed to have full knowledge of judicial decisions and existing caselaw.²¹
22. Courts, “presume the legislature was aware of those statutes previously enacted when passing new legislation.”²²
23. Statutes adopted from other jurisdictions may be given the meaning adopted by the other jurisdiction.²³
24. Modification of a statute indicates an intent to change the meaning of the statute.²⁴
25. “The legislature is presumed not to intend to overturn long established principles of law unless an intention to do so plainly appears by express declaration or the language employed admits of no other reasonable construction.”²⁵
26. Statutes should be reasonably construed to avoid implied repeal.²⁶
27. Statutes should be reasonably construed, if possible, to avoid a constitutional conflict.²⁷
28. If two statutes are irreconcilable, the later in date controls.
29. If two statutes address the same subject, the more specific statute controls over the general statute.²⁸
30. Statutes are not retroactive unless there is a clear intent for them to be retroactive indicated by the legislature.²⁹
31. Statutes should be construed in pari materia.³⁰
32. When construing two separate statutes that deal with the same subject matter, the statutes should be construed harmoniously, if at all possible, so as to further the legislative intent.³¹
33. The Courts have the final say in construing statutes and determining legislative intent.³²
34. Agency interpretation of a statute may not conflict with legislative intent.³³
35. “[S]tatutes granting privileges or relinquishing rights are to be strictly construed.”³⁴
36. Worker’s compensation statutes are construed in favor of the employee.³⁵
37. Courts can consider consequences and effects when construing criminal statutes.³⁶

In conclusion, the general rule appears to be that the most reasonable interpretation of a statute is the one that will likely be adopted by the Court, as it is the likeliest intent of the legislature. These canons are in place simply to help determine what is reasonable under the circumstances.

Endnotes

1. In re Adoption of Doe, 156 Idaho 345, 349, 326 P.3d 347, 351 (2014). See also In re Winton Lumber Co., 57 Idaho 131, 63 P.2d 664, 666 (1936) (“Other rules of construction are equally potent, especially the primary rule which suggests that the intent of the Legislature is to be found in the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute. The sense in which general words, or any words, are intended to be used, furnishes the rule of interpretation, and that is to be collected from the context; and a narrower or more extended meaning will be given, according as the intention is thus indicated.”); Sweeney v. Otter, 119 Idaho 135, 138, 804 P.2d 308, 311 (1990); State v. Olivas, 158 Idaho 375, 347 P.3d 1189, 1193 (2015); Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 893, 265 P.3d 502, 506 (2011). Statutory authority for this principal interpretation issue is found in Idaho Code § 73-113.
2. Stonebrook Const., LLC v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 152 Idaho 927, 931, 277 P.3d 374, 378 (2012). See also State v. Olivas, 158 Idaho 375, 347 P.3d 1189, 1193 (2015); Porter v. Bd. of Trustees, Preston Sch. Dist. No. 201, 141 Idaho 11, 14, 105 P.3d 671, 674 (2004); In re Adoption of Doe, 156 Idaho 345, 349, 326 P.3d 347, 351 (2014); Bonner Cty. v. Cunningham, 156 Idaho 291, 295, 323 P.3d 1252, 1256 (Ct. App. 2014); Hamilton ex rel. Hamilton v. Reeder Flying Serv., 135 Idaho 568, 572, 21 P.3d 890, 894 (2001).
3. State v. Olivas, 158 Idaho 375, 347 P.3d 1189, 1193 (2015). See also State v. Hickman, 146 Idaho 178, 184, 191 P.3d 1098, 1104 (2008); The Senator, Inc. v. Ada Cty., Bd. Of Equalization, 138 Idaho 566, 570, 67 P.3d 45, 49 (2003); Lopez v. State, 136 Idaho 174, 178, 30 P.3d 952, 956 (2001); State v. Quick Transp., Inc., 134 Idaho 240, 244, 999 P.2d 895, 899 (2000).
4. See Leliefeld v. Johnson, 104 Idaho 357, 367, 659 P.2d 111, 121 (1983); Gillihan v. Gump, 140 Idaho 264, 268, 92 P.3d 514, 518 (2004) (abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thacker, 148 Idaho 879, 231 P.3d 524 (2009)); Mix v. Gem Inv’rs, Inc., 103 Idaho 355, 357, 647 P.2d 811, 813 (Ct. App. 1982); Meyers v. City of Idaho Falls, 52 Idaho 81, 11 P.2d 626, 629 (1932); See, e.g., In re Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus, No. 43169, 2015 WL 7421342, at *20 (Idaho Nov. 20, 2015) (Eismann, J., concurring).
5. See State v. Moore, 111 Idaho 854, 856, 727 P.2d 1282, 1284 (Ct. App. 1986); Local 1494 of Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 99 Idaho 630, 640-41, 586 P.2d 1346, 1356-57 (1978); State v. Peterson, 141 Idaho 473, 476, 111 P.3d 158, 161 (Ct. App. 2004); State v. Williston, 159 Idaho 215, 358 P.3d 776, 780 (Ct. App. 2015), review denied (Nov. 2, 2015); Lyons v. Bottolfsen, 61 Idaho 281, 101 P.2d 1, 4 (1940).
6. Smith v. Dep’t of Employment, 100 Idaho 520, 522, 602 P.2d 18, 20 (1979).
7. Idaho Press Club, Inc. v. State Legislature of the State, 142 Idaho 640, 646, 132 P.3d 397, 403 (2006). See also Smith, 100 Idaho at 522, 602 P.2d at 20; Sweitzer v. Dean, 118 Idaho 568, 572, 798 P.2d 27, 31 (1990).
8. State v. Climer, 127 Idaho 20, 22, 896 P.2d 346, 348 (Ct. App. 1995).
9. See State v. Paciorek, 137 Idaho 629, 632, 51 P.3d 443, 446 (Ct. App. 2002); Ada Cty. Prosecuting Attorney v. 2007 Legendary Motorcycle, 154 Idaho 351, 354, 298 P.3d 245, 248 (2013); State v. Troughton, 126 Idaho 406, 411, 884 P.2d 419, 424 (Ct. App. 1994).
10. In re Winton Lumber Co., 57 Idaho 131, 63 P.2d 664, 666 (1936). See also Turner v. City of Lapwai, 157 Idaho 659, 664, 339 P.3d 544, 549 (2014); Sanchez v. State, Dep’t of Correction, 143 Idaho 239, 244, 141 P.3d 1108, 1113 (2006); State ex rel. Wasden v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 141 Idaho 102, 109, 106 P.3d 428, 435 (2005); State v. Kavajecz, 139 Idaho 482, 486, 80 P.3d 1083, 1087 (2003); State v. Hart, 135 Idaho 827, 831, 25 P.3d 850, 854 (2001).
11. State v. Hammersley, 134 Idaho 816, 821, 10 P.3d 1285, 1290 (2000) overruled on other grounds by State v. Poe, 139 Idaho 885, 88 P.3d 704 (2004). See also Idaho Press Club, Inc. v. State Legislature of the State, 142 Idaho 640, 654, 132 P.3d 397, 411 (2006).
12. Friends of Farm to Mkt. v. Valley Cty., 137 Idaho 192, 197, 46 P.3d 9, 14 (2002). See also Stonebrook Const., LLC v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 152 Idaho 927, 932, 277 P.3d 374, 379 (2012); State v. Yager, 139 Idaho 680, 690, 85 P.3d 656, 666 (2004); Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg’I Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 896, 265 P.3d 502, 509 (2011).
13. Hillside Landscape Const., Inc. v. City of Lewiston, 151 Idaho 749, 753, 264 P.3d 388, 392 (2011). See also Wernecke v. St. Maries Joint Sch. Dist. No. 401, 147 Idaho 277, 282, 207 P.3d 1008, 1013 (2009); Maguire v. Yanke, 99 Idaho 829, 836, 590 P.2d 85, 92 (1978); Sampson v. Layton, 86 Idaho 453, 457, 387 P.2d 883, 885 (1963); Brown v. Caldwell Sch. Dist. No. 132, 127 Idaho 112, 117, 898 P.2d 43, 48 (1995); Sweitzer v. Dean, 118 Idaho 568, 572, 798 P.2d 27, 31 (1990).
14. Matter of Adoption of Chaney, 126 Idaho 554, 558, 887 P.2d 1061, 1065 (1995). See also Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Gooding Cty., 159 Idaho 84, 356 P.3d 377, 382 (2015).
15. See Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg’I Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 893, 265 P.3d 502, 506 (2011). But see Worthen v. State, 96 Idaho 175, 180, 525 P.2d 957, 962 (1974); State v. Witzel, 79 Idaho 211, 217, 312 P.2d 1044, 1048 (1957); State ex rel. Brassey v. Hanson, 81 Idaho 403, 409, 342 P.2d 706, 709 (1959); Roos v. Belcher, 79 Idaho 473, 481, 321 P.2d 210, 214 (1958).
16. Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Gooding Cty., 159 Idaho 84, 356 P.3d 377, 380 (2015). See also Local 1494 of Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 99 Idaho 630, 639, 586 P.2d 1346, 1355 (1978); Noble v. Glenns Ferry Bank, Ltd., 91 Idaho 364, 367, 421 P.2d 444, 447 (1966).
17. See Cameron v. Lakeland Class A Sch. Dist. No. 272, Kootenai Cty., 82 Idaho 375, 381, 353 P.2d 652, 655 (1960); White v. Mock, 140 Idaho 882, 890, 104 P.3d 356, 364 (2004); Roe v. Hopper, 90 Idaho 22, 27, 408 P.2d 161, 164 (1965); Maguire v. Yanke, 99 Idaho 829, 836, 590 P.2d 85, 92 (1978). See, e.g. Hennefer v. Blaine Cty. Sch. Dist., 158 Idaho 242, 346 P.3d 259, 265-66 (2015), reh’g denied (Apr. 23, 2015).
18. See St. Luke’s Magic Valley Reg’l Med. Ctr., Ltd. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Gooding Cty., 149 Idaho 584, 589, 237 P.3d 1210, 1215 (2010); Kerley v. Wetherell, 61 Idaho 31, 96 P.2d 503, 508 (1939); Sprouse v. Magee, 46 Idaho 622, 269 P. 993, 996 (1928).
19. See Twin Falls Cty. v. Idaho Comm’n on Redistricting, 152 Idaho 346, 349, 271 P.3d 1202, 1205 (2012); Rife v. Long, 127 Idaho 841, 848, 908 P.2d 143, 150 (1995); State, Dep’t of Law Enf’t v. One 1955 Willys Jeep, V.I.N. 573481691, 100 Idaho 150, 159, 595 P.2d 299, 308 (1979) (abrogated by Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg’I Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 265 P.3d 502 (2011)); Bonner Cty. v. Cunningham, 156 Idaho 291, 297-98, 323 P.3d 1252, 1258-59 (Ct. App. 2014); Peterson v. Bonneville Joint Sch. Dist. No. 93, 832 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1221 (D. Idaho 2011).
20. State v. Holder, 49 Idaho 514, 290 P. 387, 389 (1930). See also Idaho Code § 73-114, and generally all of Idaho Code Title 73, Chapter 1.
21. See St. Luke’s Reg’I Med. Ctr., Ltd. v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Ada Cty., 146 Idaho 753, 758, 203 P.3d 683, 688 (2009); Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc., 139 Idaho 207, 212, 76 P.3d 951, 956 (2003); State v. Martinez, 126 Idaho 801, 803, 891 P.2d 1061, 1063 (Ct. App. 1995); City of Sandpoint v. Sandpoint Indep. Highway Dist., 126 Idaho 145, 150, 879 P.2d 1078, 1083 (1994).
22. State v. Betterton, 127 Idaho 562, 563, 903 P.2d 151, 152 (Ct. App. 1995). See also State v. Perkins, 135 Idaho 17, 21, 13 P.3d 344, 348 (Ct. App. 2000). See also State v. Long, 91 Idaho 436, 441, 423 P.2d 858, 863 (1967).
23. See Sun Valley Land & Minerals, Inc. v. Burt, 123 Idaho 862, 868, 853 P.2d 607, 613 (Ct. App. 1993); Doe v. Durtschi, 110 Idaho 466, 473, 716 P.2d 1238, 1245 (1986) (fn. 2); Leliefeld v. Johnson, 104 Idaho 357, 367, 659 P.2d 111, 121 (1983). See also Intermountain Bus. Forms, Inc. v. Shepard Bus. Forms Co., 96 Idaho 538, 541, 531 P.2d 1183, 1186 (1975) (“Idaho’s statute is modeled after the Illinois ‘long arm’ statute. Thus, we may look to the decisions of the Illinois court on point for persuasive guidance.”); Chacon v. Sperry Corp., 111 Idaho 270, 273, 723 P.2d 814, 817 (1986) (adopting federal interpretation of the federal rules for the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure).
24. See Dohl v. PSF Indus., Inc., 127 Idaho 232, 237, 899 P.2d 445, 450 (1995). See also Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Gooding Cty., 159 Idaho 84, 356 P.3d 377, 382 (2015) (quoting Nebeker v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 113 Idaho 609, 614, 747 P.2d 18, 23 (1987)); Lincoln Cty. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 102 Idaho 489, 491, 632 P.2d 678, 680 (1981).
25. George W. Watkins Family v. Messenger, 118 Idaho 537, 540, 797 P.2d 1385, 1388 (1990) abrogated on other grounds by Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 265 P.3d 502 (2011). See also State v. Owens, 158 Idaho 1, 343 P.3d 30, 39 (2015); Burns Holdings, LLC v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Cty. Commrs, 147 Idaho 660, 666, 214 P.3d 646, 652 (2009); Doolittle v. Morley, 77 Idaho 366, 372, 292 P.2d 476, 481 (1956).
26. See Seiniger Law Offices, PA. v. State ex rel. Indus. Comm’n, 154 Idaho 461, 465, 299 P.3d 773, 777 (2013); Callies v. O’Neal, 147 Idaho 841, 847, 216 P.3d 130, 136 (2009); Tetzlaff v. Brooks, 130 Idaho 903, 904, 950 P.2d 1242, 1243 (1997).
27. State v. Olivas, 158 Idaho 375, 380, 347 P.3d 1189, 1194 (2015) (quoting Grice v. Clearwater Timber Co., 20 Idaho 70, 117 P. 112, 114 (1911)). See also Idaho State AFL-CIO v. Leroy, 110 Idaho 691, 698, 718 P.2d 1129, 1136 (1986). See also Idaho Code § 73-101.
28. Canons 28 and 29 are often quoted together. See Beehler v. Fremont Cty., 145 Idaho 656, 658, 182 P.3d 713, 715 (Ct. App. 2008); Arthur v. Shoshone Cty., 133 Idaho 854, 861, 993 P.2d 617, 624 (Ct. App. 2000); Roe v. Harris, 128 Idaho 569, 572, 917 P.2d 403, 406 (1996) abrogated on other grounds by Rincover v. State, Dep’t of Fin., Sec. Bureau, 132 Idaho 547, 976 P.2d 473 (1999); Tomich v. City of Pocatello, 127 Idaho 394, 400, 901 P.2d 501, 507 (1995); State v. Gamino, 148 Idaho 827, 829, 230 P.3d 437, 439 (Ct. App. 2010); State v. Betterton, 127 Idaho 562, 564, 903 P.2d 151, 153 (Ct. App. 1995).
29. See Gailey v. Jerome Cty., 113 Idaho 430, 432, 745 P.2d 1051, 1053 (1987); Guzman v. Piercy, 155 Idaho 928, 938, 318 P.3d 918, 928 (2014); Wheeler v. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 147 Idaho 257, 262, 207 P.3d 988, 993 (2009). See also See State v. Owens, 158 Idaho 1, 6, 343 P.3d 30, 35 (2015); Sanders v. Bd. Of Trustees of Mountain Home Sch. Dist. No. 193, 156 Idaho 269, 273, 322 P.3d 1002, 1006 (2014) for a discussion of retroactive caselaw.
30. See City of Sandpoint v. Sandpoint Indep. Highway Dist., 139 Idaho 65, 69, 72 P.3d 905, 909 (2003); Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Elmore Cty., 158 Idaho 648, 653, 350 P.3d 1025, 1030 (2015) (quoting Grand Canyon Dories v. Idaho State Tax Commn, 124 Idaho 1, 4, 855 P.2d 462, 465 (1993)); Meyers v. City of Idaho Falls, 52 Idaho 81, 11 P.2d 626, 629 (1932).
31. See State v. Seamons, 126 Idaho 809, 811-12, 892 P.2d 484, 486-87 (Ct. App. 1995); State v. Thiel, 158 Idaho 103, 110, 343 P.3d 1110, 1117 (2015); State v. Doe, 147 Idaho 326, 329, 208 P.3d 730, 733 (2009); State v. Callaghan, 143 Idaho 856, 858, 153 P.3d 1202, 1204 (Ct. App. 2006); Edwards v. Indus. Comm’n of State, 130 Idaho 457, 461, 943 P.2d 47, 51 (1997); Kaseburg v. State, Bd. of Land Comm’rs, 154 Idaho 570, 577, 300 P.3d 1058, 1065 (2013).
32. See J.R. Simplot Co. v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 120 Idaho 849, 853, 820 P.2d 1206, 1210 (1991) (citing Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60, 73 (1803)); Mulder v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Co., 135 Idaho 52, 57, 14 P.3d 372, 377 (2000).
33. See J.R. Simplot Co. 120 Idaho at 861-62, 820 P.2d at 1218-19. See also A & B Irr. Dist. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 154 Idaho 652, 653-54, 301 P.3d 1270, 1271-72 (2012); A & B Irr. Dist. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 154 Idaho 652, 653-54, 301 P.3d 1270, 1271-72 (2012); Hood v. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 125 Idaho 151, 154, 868 P.2d 479, 482 (1994).
34. See Pocatello v. State, 145 Idaho 497, 501, 180 P.3d 1048, 1052 (2008) (citing and quoting from Caldwell v. United States, 250 U.S. 14, 20, 39 5. Ct. 397, 398, 63 L. Ed. 816 (1919)).
35. See Davaz v. Priest River Glass Co., 125 Idaho 333, 337, 870 P.2d 1292, 1296 (1994); Wernecke v. St. Maries Joint Sch. Dist. No. 401, 147 Idaho 277, 282, 207 P.3d 1008, 1013 (2009).
36. See State v. Yager, 139 Idaho 680, 690, 85 P.3d 656, 666 (2004); State v. Webb, 76 Idaho 162, 167, 279 P.2d 634, 636-37 (1955); State v. Herrera, 152 Idaho 24, 28, 266 P.3d 499, 503 (Ct. App. 2011).

This blog is provided by Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP for educational and information purposes only. It is intended to notify our clients and friends of certain events or issues. It is not intended to be, nor should it be, used as a substitute for legal advice regarding specific factual circumstances. © Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP all rights reserved.

---