Milford Township Appeal

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• \General expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the language preceding the general expressions.\
• \General expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the language preceding the general expressions.\ (citation omitted)
• “General expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the language preceding the general expressions.”
• “General expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the language preceding the general expressions.” (citation omitted)
• “The doctrine of ejusdem generis mandates that ‘[g]eneral expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the language preceding the general expressions.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1974-12-05· cited 323×
• Davis v. Sulcowe
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1964-12-03· cited 51×
• Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner of Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-09-27· cited 35×
• Commonwealth v. Ashford
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1979-01-19· cited 27×
• Summit House Condominium v. Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-03-30· cited 25×
• Petty v. Hospital Service Ass'n
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-06-20· cited 23×
• PICPA Foundation for Education & Research v. Commonwealth
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-10-29· cited 18×
• In Re Estate of Bartol
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 2004-04-07· cited 17×
• In Re Condemnation by the Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, of Right of Way for State Route 79, Section W10
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2002-06-17· cited 14×
• Salopek v. Alberts
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1965-04-20· cited 12×
• In re Condemnation by Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2002-06-17· cited 10×
• Pennsylvania Industries for the Blind & Handicapped v. Larson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-09-24· cited 9×
• Keranko v. Washington Youth Baseball, Inc.
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-12-20· cited 8×
• West Mead Township Annexation Case
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1965-09-16· cited 8×
• State v. Ferris
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1971-12-08· cited 7×
• Pennsylvania Industries for the Blind & Handicapped v. Larson
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-03-12· cited 4×
• In re Slatington Borough Ordinance
  Lehigh County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1963-09-17· cited 4×
• Homziak v. General Electric Capital Warranty Corp.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-11-18· cited 3×
• Wheatcroft v. Tax Claim Bureau
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1973-12-14· cited 3×
• Eastern Order Buying Co. Appeals
  Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas· 1961-09-01· cited 1×