Last antecedent rule explained

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

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:

“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]

See also

Rules of law

• Four corners

Grammar rules

• Possessive antecedent
• Syntax

Notes and References

1. News: Adams . Kenneth A. . Behind the scenes of the comma dispute . Globe and Mail . 28 August 2007.
2. Web site: Vieth . Peter . 2018-11-19 . Circuits split on lenders' loophole Virginia Lawyers Weekly . 2023-04-04 . en-US.
3. Book: Hill . Gerald N. . Hill . Kathleen . The people's law dictionary : taking the mystery out of legal language . 2002 . MJF Books . New York, NY . 9781567315530.
4. Web site: 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)) . 2023-04-01 . casetext.com.
5. Web site: 2018-10-28 . 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) . live . https://web.archive.org/web/20220523121215/https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/opinions/cl-2018-6258-cw-v-nc-financial-solutions-of-utah-llc.pdf . 2022-05-23 . 2023-04-01 . fairfaxcounty.gov.
6. Web site: SEIU v. DAS, 183 Or.App. 594, 54 P. 3d 1043 (2002) . Google Scholar . 22 November 2021.
7. Web site: Board of Trustees v. Judge, 50 Cal. App. 3d 920 (1975) . Google Scholar . 22 November 2021. (citing Wholesale T. Dealers v. National etc. Co., 11 Cal. 2d 634, 659, 82 P.2d 3, 17 (1938)).