Last antecedent rule

Last updated

The last antecedent rule is a controversial rule for interpreting statutes and contracts. The rule is that "Referential and qualifying phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent." [1] There are examples of judges both applying and rejecting use of the rule under similar facts. [2] The rule is typically bound by "common sense" [3] and is flexible enough to avoid application that "would involve an absurdity, do violence to the plain intent of the language, or if the context for other reason requires a deviation from the rule." [4]

Contents

Further qualifications have been noted to application of the rule: [5]

The Rule of the Last Antecedent is often cited as gospel to courts in statutory construction disputes, with little reference to its origins and the caveats set forth by its primary originator. While courts invoked the principle previously, it was Jabez Gridley Sutherland, a noted attorney, legislator, judge and politician, who in 1891 in his influential treatise stated, “Relative and qualifying words and phrases, grammatically and legally, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent.” J. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 420 (1891) (footnote citations omitted). Sutherland, however, qualified his proposed rule. He noted, “[i]t is better always to adhere to a plain, common-sense interpretation of the words of a statute than to apply to them a refined and technical grammatical construction. It is not always safe to assume that the draftsman of an act understood the rules of grammar.” Id. § 259. “Qualifying words have been applied to several preceding sections where the nature of the provisions and the obvious sense required it.” Id. § 267. He noted further that where there is “improbability of a contrary design[,]… an independent proposition” may apply alike to all antecedents which are of the “same class.” See id. (applying the principle to “officers”). Thus, “[w]here the intention is manifest, a proviso … when inserted in one section … may be applied to the matter of another section.” Id.

An alternate and more formulaic approach to the rule requires, inflexibly, that "Evidence that a qualifying phrase is supposed to apply to all antecedents instead of only to the immediately preceding one may be found in the fact that it is separated from the antecedents by a comma." [6] Kenneth A. Adams, author of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, has criticized this canon of construction and rigid approach as being applied inconsistently and contrary to the guidance of many manuals of style: [1]

Manuals of style recognize that the comma is used to indicate a slight break in a sentence. But according to the Rule of the Last Antecedent, adding a comma after a series of antecedents not only doesn't sever the modifier from the last noun or phrase in the series, it in fact operates remotely on all the antecedents, binding them to the modifier. Nothing in the general literature on punctuation suggests such a mechanism.

“A contrary rule of construction is that when a clause follows several words in a statute and is applicable as much to the first word as to the others in the list, the clause should be applied to all of the words which preceded it.” [7]

Related Research Articles

In linguistics and grammar, a pronoun is a word or a group of words that one may substitute for a noun or noun phrase.

An adjective is a word that describes a noun or noun phrase. Its semantic role is to change information given by the noun.

English grammar is the set of structural rules of the English language. This includes the structure of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and whole texts.

The comma, is a punctuation mark that appears in several variants in different languages. It has the same shape as an apostrophe or single closing quotation mark in many typefaces, but it differs from them in being placed on the baseline of the text. Some typefaces render it as a small line, slightly curved or straight, but inclined from the vertical. Other fonts give it the appearance of a miniature filled-in figure 9 on the baseline.

In grammar, a conjunction is a part of speech that connects words, phrases, or clauses that are called the conjuncts of the conjunctions. That definition may overlap with that of other parts of speech, and so what constitutes a "conjunction" must be defined for each language. In English, a given word may have several senses, and be either a preposition or a conjunction depending on the syntax of the sentence. For example, after is a preposition in "he left after the fight" but is a conjunction in "he left after they fought". In general, a conjunction is an invariable (non-inflected) grammatical particle that may or may not stand between the items conjoined.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English compound</span> Aspect of English grammar

A compound is a word composed of more than one free morpheme. The English language, like many others, uses compounds frequently. English compounds may be classified in several ways, such as the word classes or the semantic relationship of their components.

In English-language punctuation, a serial comma is a comma placed immediately after the penultimate term in a series of three or more terms. For example, a list of three countries might be punctuated either as "France, Italy and Spain" or "France, Italy, and Spain".

In linguistics, coreference, sometimes written co-reference, occurs when two or more expressions refer to the same person or thing; they have the same referent. For example, in Bill said Alice would arrive soon, and she did, the words Alice and she refer to the same person.

Relative clauses in the English language are formed principally by means of relative pronouns. The basic relative pronouns are who, which, and that; who also has the derived forms whom and whose. Various grammatical rules and style guides determine which relative pronouns may be suitable in various situations, especially for formal settings. In some cases the relative pronoun may be omitted and merely implied.

Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation both to legislation enacted by the legislature and to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

A compound modifier is a compound of two or more attributive words: that is, two or more words that collectively modify a noun. Compound modifiers are grammatically equivalent to single-word modifiers and can be used in combination with other modifiers.

The plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts. The other two are the "mischief rule" and the "golden rule".

The golden rule in English law is one of the rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by the English courts. The rule can be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is contrary to principles of public policy. The rule can be applied in two different ways, named respectively the narrow approach and the broad approach.

In linguistics, agreement or concord occurs when a word changes form depending on the other words to which it relates. It is an instance of inflection, and usually involves making the value of some grammatical category "agree" between varied words or parts of the sentence.

"The exception that proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning is contested. Henry Watson Fowler's Modern English Usage identifies five ways in which the phrase has been used, and each use makes some sort of reference to the role that a particular case or event takes in relation to a more general rule.

Generic antecedents are representatives of classes, referred to in ordinary language by another word, in a situation in which gender is typically unknown or irrelevant. These mostly arise in generalizations and are particularly common in abstract, theoretical or strategic discourse. Examples include "readers of Wikipedia appreciate their encyclopedia," "the customerwho spends in this market."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interpretation Act 1978</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Interpretation Act 1978 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act makes provision for the interpretation of Acts of Parliament, Measures of the General Synod of the Church of England, Measures of the Church Assembly, subordinate legislation, "deeds and other instruments and documents," Acts of the Scottish Parliament and instruments made thereunder, and Measures and Acts of the National Assembly for Wales and instruments made thereunder. The Act makes provision in relation to: the construction of certain words and phrases, words of enactment, amendment or repeal of Acts in the Session they were passed, judicial notice, commencement, statutory powers and duties, the effect of repeals, and duplicated offences.

The purposive approach is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment within the context of the law's purpose.

<i>Tasmania v Commonwealth</i>

Tasmania v Commonwealth, is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia in 1904. The case concerned a claim by Tasmanian for customs tariffs collected in Victoria during the period between Federation and the commencement of the Commonwealth Customs Tariff. Significantly, the High Court established that the Australian Constitution should interpreted consistently with the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation.

In linguistics, a relativizer is a type of conjunction that introduces a relative clause. For example, in English, the conjunction that may be considered a relativizer in a sentence such as "I have one that you can use." Relativizers do not appear, at least overtly, in all languages; even in languages that do have overt or pronounced relativizers, they do not necessarily appear all of the time. For these reasons it has been suggested that in some cases, a "zero relativizer" may be present, meaning that a relativizer is implied in the grammar but is not actually realized in speech or writing. For example, the word that can be omitted in the above English example, producing "I have one you can use", using a zero relativizer.

References

  1. 1 2 Adams, Kenneth A. (28 August 2007). "Behind the scenes of the comma dispute". Globe and Mail.
  2. ↑ Vieth, Peter (2018-11-19). "Circuits split on lenders' loophole | Virginia Lawyers Weekly" . Retrieved 2023-04-04.
  3. ↑ Hill, Gerald N.; Hill, Kathleen (2002). The people's law dictionary : taking the mystery out of legal language. New York, NY: MJF Books. ISBN   9781567315530.
  4. ↑ "Nea-Goodland v. U.S.D. No. 352, 775 P.2d 675, 13 Kan. App. 2, 13 Kan. App. 2d 558 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989)(quoting In re Petition of School District of Omaha, 151 Neb. 304, 307-308, 37 N.W.2d 209 (1949))|". casetext.com. Retrieved 2023-04-01.
  5. ↑ "Com. v. NC Financial Solutions of Utah, LLC, No. CL 2018-6258, at *16, 2018 WL 5621026, at *7 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. October 28, 2018)" (PDF). fairfaxcounty.gov. 2018-10-28. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2023-04-01.
  6. ↑ "SEIU v. DAS, 183 Or.App. 594, 54 P. 3d 1043 (2002)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 22 November 2021.
  7. ↑ "Board of Trustees v. Judge, 50 Cal. App. 3d 920 (1975)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 22 November 2021. (citing Wholesale T. Dealers v. National etc. Co., 11 Cal. 2d 634, 659, 82 P.2d 3, 17 (1938)).

See also

Rules of law

Grammar rules

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.