Legal Opinion · Dissent

Daniel Senior Living of Inverness I, LLC v. STV One Nineteen Senior Living, LLC

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided February 3, 2012No. 2100476Published

1DissentPittman, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The ejusdem generis doctrine applied by the main opinion is but an “aid in ascertaining and giving effect to the legislative intent where there is uncertainty”; conversely, if “it is apparent that the Legislature intended the general words to go beyond the class specifically designated, the rule does not apply.” Moore v. City of Mobile, 248 Ala. 436, 440, 28 So.2d 208, 206 (1946). Here, the legislature has defined “[e]mergency capital expenditures” such that the term “indude[s], but [is] not necessarily limited to,” various enumerated situations involving the failure…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Achelis v. MusgroveSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  2. Moore v. City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1946
  3. Prince v. HigginsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API