A legislature’s omission of a known exception signals deliberate intent to exclude it

Evidence

No inference favorable to the plaintiffs in error can be drawn from the supposed familiarity of the law makers with the principles of the civil law where, by an exception, they who murder their ancestors are excluded from the inheritance. The natural inference is that when they incorporated the general rule into the statute, and omitted the exception, they intended that there should be no exception to the rule of inheritance prescribed. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1872

Categorization

• DEFINE: Exemplifies the interpretive canon expressio unius / the negative implication that omitting a familiar exception is deliberate.
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: Judges test statutory reach by asking how the lawmaker would answer if consulted — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1902; Courts construe legislative silence as deliberate intent, though silence admits other readings — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 4205; A penal statute’s silence on a subject implies no legislative intent to regulate it — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1005 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Group intentions cannot be reliably ascribed to legislatures #complicates (0.90) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2482
• Absence of archival plans should not be read as proof of intent #complicates (0.85)
• Being unnamed by a state’s administrative lexicon places one outside legal protection #corroborates (0.80) — David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 83
• Hearsay rule exceptions mark where the general rule does not apply #expands (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1099