last antecedent doctrine in Florida

2008Petersburg v. Nasworthy , 751 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (under doctrine of last antecedent, phrase "not to exceed the maximum weekly benefit under s. 440.12" was intended to refer to the immediately preceding phrase, "the employee's average weekly temporary total disability benefit" and not to more remote phrase "[i]mpairment income benefits"); Rich Electronics, Inc v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Company , 523 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), appeal after remand , 548 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied , 560 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1990) (relative or qualifying phrase is to be con

2003Petersburg v. Nasworthy , 751 So.2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (under doctrine of last antecedent, phrase "not to exceed the maximum weekly benefit under s. 440.12 " was intended to refer to the immediately preceding phrase, "the employee's average weekly temporary total disability benefit" and not to more remote phrase "[i]mpairment income benefits"); Rich Electronics, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Company , 523 So.2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), appeal after remand, 548 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 560 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1990) (relative or qualifying phrase is to be constru

2024See, e.g., Kasischke v. State, 991 So. 2d 803, 811 (Fla. 2008) (“One such canon is the doctrine of the last antecedent, under which ‘relative and qualifying words, phrases and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to, or including, others more remote.’” (quoting City of St.

2020The relevant doctrine provides: Under the “doctrine of the last antecedent,” “relative and qualifying words, phrases and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to, or including, others more remote.” Kasischke v. State, 991 So. 2d 803, 811 (Fla. 2008) (quoting City of St.

2023Also, as we have explained, the doctrine of the last antecedent has “a well-established corollary rule based on simple punctuation.” Id.

2008Where the sense of the entire act requires that a qualifying word or phrase apply to several preceding or even succeeding sections, the word or phrase will not be restricted to its immediate antecedent." Id.; see also Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 , 124 S.Ct. 376 , 157 L.Ed.2d 333 (2003) ("While [the doctrine of last antecedent] is not an absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning, we have said that construing a statute in accord with the rule is `quite sensible as a matter of grammar.'" (quoting Nobelman v. Am.

2006Additionally, citing Kirksey v. State, 433 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984), the trial court noted that under the "doctrine of the last antecedent," courts construe qualifying words, phrases, and clauses to apply to the words or phrases immediately preceding *1238 them, and not to other words or phrases that are more remote.

1990Under the doctrine of the last antecedent, see Kirksey v. State, 433 So.2d 1236, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the phrase "prior to the commission of the primary offense" should be read as modifying the phrase "resulting in conviction" because the former immediately follows the latter.

1996In discussing qualifying phrases in sentences with more than one antecedent, this court has stated: We are aided by the statutory rule of construction known as the doctrine of last antecedent, under which " 'relative and qualifying words, phrases, and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote’ [citations omitted].” McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. McCauley, 418 So.2d 1177, 1179-1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

1983We are aided by the statutory rule of construction known as the doctrine of the last antecedent, under which "`relative and qualifying words, phrases, and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote' [citations omitted]." McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. McCauley, 418 So.2d 1177, 1179-1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). [2] There is no doubt that the phrase, "before the officer has an opportunity to inform him," is a qualifying phrase.

2010Fla. 83-60 (1983) and Mallard v. Tele-Trip Company , 398 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (under doctrine of last antecedent, relative and qualifying words and phrases are to be applied to the word or phrase immediately preceding). 5 See Florida State Racing Commission v. Bourquardez , 42 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1949) (Legislature is presumed to know meaning of words and rules of grammar; court is advised of Legislature's intention by giving the generally accepted construction not only to phraseology of act but to manner in which it is punctuated); S.R.G.

2010Fla. 83-60 (1983) and Mallard v. Tele-Trip Company , 398 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (under doctrine of last antecedent, relative and qualifying words and phrases are to be applied to the word or phrase immediately preceding). 4 See Florida State Racing Commission v. Bourquardez , 42 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1949) (Legislature is presumed to know meaning of words and rules of grammar; court is advised of Legislature's intention by giving the generally accepted construction not only to phraseology of act but to manner in which it is punctuated); S.R.G.

2008Compare id. (applying rule of the last antecedent) with Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 330 , 113 S.Ct. 2106 , 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993) (declining to apply rule of last antecedent and instead adopting an interpretation which "is the more reasonable one[.]"), and compare Miller v. Kase, 789 So.2d 1095, 1098-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (declining to apply doctrine of last antecedent) with Mallard v. Tele-Trip Co., 398 So.2d 969, 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (applying doctrine of last antecedent).

2008Compare id. (applying rule of the last antecedent) with Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 330 , 113 S.Ct. 2106 , 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993) (declining to apply rule of last antecedent and instead adopting an interpretation which "is the more reasonable one[.]"), and compare Miller v. Kase, 789 So.2d 1095, 1098-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (declining to apply doctrine of last antecedent) with Mallard v. Tele-Trip Co., 398 So.2d 969, 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (applying doctrine of last antecedent).

2016Regulation, 15 So.3d 793, 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (quoting Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803, 811 (Fla.2008)).

2011Reg., 15 So.3d 793, 795-96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Owens and stating under the doctrine of the last antecedent, qualifying phrases in a clause are limited to the words immediately preceding unless a comma is used to set off the phrase); Edgewater Beach Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Walton County, 833 So.2d 215, 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding the same).

2008Compare id. (applying rule of the last antecedent) with Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 330 , 113 S.Ct. 2106 , 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993) (declining to apply rule of last antecedent and instead adopting an interpretation which "is the more reasonable one[.]"), and compare Miller v. Kase, 789 So.2d 1095, 1098-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (declining to apply doctrine of last antecedent) with Mallard v. Tele-Trip Co., 398 So.2d 969, 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (applying doctrine of last antecedent).

2006Compare id. (applying rule of the last antecedent) with Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 330 , 113 S.Ct. 2106 , 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993) (declining to apply rule of last antecedent and instead adopting an interpretation which "is the more reasonable one[.]"), and compare Miller v. Kase, 789 So.2d 1095, 1098-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (declining to apply doctrine of last antecedent) with Mallard v. Tele-Trip Co., 398 So.2d 969, 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (applying doctrine of last antecedent).

1982In Mallard v. Tele-Trip Co., 398 So.2d 969, 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), *1180 rev. denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1981), we noted, as stated in Quindlen v. Prudential Insurance Co., 482 F.2d 876, 878 (5th Cir.1973), that "relative and qualifying words, phrases, and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote." (emphasis supplied); see also, 82 C.J.S.

1981The list of taxes and fees includes "excise, privilege, franchise, income, license, permit, registration and similar taxes and fees, measured by premiums, income, or volume of transactions... ." § 624.520(1), Fla. Stat. (1971). "[U]nder the `doctrine of the last antecedent,' relative and qualifying words, phrases, and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote." Quindlen v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 482 F.2d 876, 878 (5th Cir.1973), reh. denied; 82 C.J.S.

2016“In construing a statute, we look first to the statute’s plain meaning.” Moonlit Waters Apts., Inc. v. Cauley, 666 So.2d 898, 900 (Fla. 1996). “[Relative and qualifying words, phrases and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immfediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to, or including, others more remote.” City of St.

2011Reg., 15 So.3d 793, 795-96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Owens and stating under the doctrine of the last antecedent, qualifying phrases in a clause are limited to the words immediately preceding unless a comma is used to set off the phrase); Edgewater Beach Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Walton County, 833 So.2d 215, 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding the same).

2010See United States v. Hayes, — U.S. -, -, 129 S.Ct. 1079, 1086 , 172 L.Ed.2d 816 (2009) (“The rule of the last antecedent ... ‘is not an absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning.’ ”) (quoting Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 , 124 S.Ct. 376 , 157 L.Ed.2d 333 (2003)); Fortune Ins.

2010See United States v. Hayes, — U.S. -, -, 129 S.Ct. 1079, 1086 , 172 L.Ed.2d 816 (2009) (“The rule of the last antecedent ... ‘is not an absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning.’ ”) (quoting Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 , 124 S.Ct. 376 , 157 L.Ed.2d 333 (2003)); Fortune Ins.

2008Owens v. Pearson, 156 So.2d 4, 6 (Fla.1963) ("[F]ollowing an enumeration in a series, a qualifying phrase will be read as limited to the last of the series when it follows that item without a comma or other indication that it relates as well to those items preceding the conjunction."); 48A Fla. Jur.2d Statutes § 133 (2007) (recognizing that under the doctrine of last antecedent, "a qualifying phrase in a statute is read as limited to the last item in a series when the phrase follows that item without a comma").

2008Owens v. Pearson, 156 So.2d 4, 6 (Fla.1963) ("[F]ollowing an enumeration in a series, a qualifying phrase will be read as limited to the last of the series when it follows that item without a comma or other indication that it relates as well to those items preceding the conjunction."); 48A Fla. Jur.2d Statutes § 133 (2007) (recognizing that under the doctrine of last antecedent, "a qualifying phrase in a statute is read as limited to the last item in a series when the phrase follows that item without a comma").

2008Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 330 , 113 S.Ct. 2106 , 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993))); Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345, 348 , 40 S.Ct. 516 , 64 L.Ed. 944 (1920) ("When several words are followed by a clause which is applicable as much to the first and other words as to the last, the natural construction of the language demands that the clause be read as applicable to all.").

2008Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 330 , 113 S.Ct. 2106 , 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993))); Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345, 348 , 40 S.Ct. 516 , 64 L.Ed. 944 (1920) ("When several words are followed by a clause which is applicable as much to the first and other words as to the last, the natural construction of the language demands that the clause be read as applicable to all.").

2008See Wagner v. Botts, 88 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.1956) ("We have no authority to insert punctuation marks which are not there in order to engraft upon the Act our notion of what the Legislature intended or should have intended."). [7] Instead, under the doctrine of last antecedent, the last phrase would qualify the immediately preceding phrase, so that "relevant to the offender's deviant behavior pattern" would modify only "electronic media, computer programs, or computer services." See State ex rel.