Also known as: include but not limited to · includes but not limited to · including without limitation · includes without limitation · without limitation · inter alia
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A phrase introducing a list of examples that does not exhaust the full scope of the preceding term or category.
Judge Ramirez presides over a contract dispute between two corporations. One party moves to disqualify the judge because the judge's former law partner represents a key witness, a circumstance not enumerated in the listed examples. The motion succeeds because the phrase signals that other situations raising reasonable questions about impartiality also require recusal.
Officer Patel obtains consent from driver Morales to search a sedan for narcotics without any stated limits. The officer opens a locked briefcase in the trunk and finds controlled substances. The search is upheld because the phrase in the governing standard shows that consent reaches any container where drugs could reasonably be hidden.
During a bench trial, Judge Ellison comments on a witness's national origin while evaluating credibility. The comment is challenged as improper even though it does not match every listed attribute. The challenge prevails because the phrase indicates that bias or prejudice on any ground is prohibited during judicial duties.
Attorney Vargas repeatedly refers to an opposing party's marital status in a manner that suggests negative stereotypes during cross-examination. The judge orders counsel to stop even though the specific attribute is not the only one listed. The order stands because the phrase demonstrates that the prohibition covers bias on any of the enumerated or similar grounds.
Judge Patel agrees to serve on the planning committee for a bar association fundraiser supporting legal aid. The activity is permitted even though it is not among the specific examples provided. The permission follows because the phrase signals that a judge may engage in a broader range of law-related civic activities sponsored by qualifying organizations.
A state law prohibits the use of peyote in all contexts. Members of a religious group argue that the prohibition burdens their ceremonies even though the statute does not list every traditional practice. The challenge fails because the phrase signals that listed items are merely illustrative of protected religious activities.
Alfred Smith and Galen Black were members of the Native American Church employed at a private drug rehabilitation organization in Oregon. They ingested peyote for sacramental purposes during a church ceremony. Their employer fired them for this conduct, treating it as work-related misconduct. Smith and Black applied to the Employment Division of the Oregon Department of Human Resources for unemployment compensation benefits, but the Division denied the claims on the ground that the firings constituted misconduct. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the denials, holding that they violated the respondents' free exercise rights under the First Amendment. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that respondents were entitled to payment of unemployment benefits. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for a determination whether Oregon law prohibited the sacramental use of peyote. On remand, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the statute made no exception for sacramental use and reaffirmed its conclusion that denying benefits violated the respondents' constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari a second time. Oregon law prohibits knowing or intentional possession of peyote, a Schedule I controlled substance, making it a Class B felony. The respondents' peyote use occurred at a Native American Church ceremony and formed the sole basis for their terminations and benefit denials.
View caseNo. The phrase signals that the listed items are merely examples and do not limit the broader category or obligation described.
It expands the reach of the rule beyond the enumerated circumstances so that any situation in which impartiality might reasonably be questioned triggers disqualification.
It confirms that a general consent to search a vehicle extends to any container where the object of the search could reasonably be concealed.
Yes. Related provisions clarify that the restrictions do not bar legitimate references to the listed attributes when they bear on a proceeding.
The judge violates the rule because the phrase imposes an affirmative duty to prevent court staff from manifesting bias or prejudice on any of the identified grounds.
…for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions . . . , including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites”). Congress recognized that certain substances, such as…