last antecedent rule in Washington

2026“The last antecedent rule states that ‘unless a contrary intention appears in the statute, qualifying words and phrases refer to the last antecedent[.]’ ” State v. Bunker, 144 Wn. App. 407, 418 , 183 P.3d 1086 (2008) (quoting City of Spokane v. Spokane County, 158 Wn.2d 661, 673 , 146 P.3d 893 (2006)).

2026“The last antecedent rule states that ‘unless a contrary intention appears in the statute, qualifying words and phrases refer to the last antecedent[.]’ ” State v. Bunker, 144 Wn. App. 407, 418 , 183 P.3d 1086 (2008) (quoting City of Spokane v. Spokane County, 158 Wn.2d 661, 673 , 146 P.3d 893 (2006)).

2021In State v. McGee, 122 Wn.2d 783 (1993), the Evergreen State high court also refused to apply the last antecedent rule when construing RCW 69.50.435, which criminalizes manufacturing, delivering, and possessing with an intent to deliver, because the application of the rule conflicted with legislative purposes.

2019In this case, PeaceHealth correctly points out that the Legislature did not insert a comma before the phrase “under chapter 74.09 RCW.” The last antecedent rule, however, is “not inflexible and uniformly binding.” State v. McGee, 122 Wn.2d 783, 788 , 864 P.2d 912 (1993).

2018Berrocal v. Fernandez , 155 Wash.2d 585 , 593, 121 P.3d 82 (2005) (quoting In re Sehome Park Care Ctr., Inc., 127 Wash.2d 774 , 781, 903 P.2d 443 (1995) ). " 'The last antecedent is the last word, phrase or clause that can be made an antecedent without impairing the meaning of the sentence.' " Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re Estate of Kurtzman, 65 Wash.2d 260 , 264, 396 P.2d 786 (1964) ). ¶ 44 Applying the last antecedent rule, the final clause, "before the end of such regular session," certainly applies to the immediate antecedent-"without change or amendment." ¶ 45 Indeed, the parties

2018Berrocal v. Fernandez , 155 Wash.2d 585 , 593, 121 P.3d 82 (2005) (quoting In re Sehome Park Care Ctr., Inc., 127 Wash.2d 774 , 781, 903 P.2d 443 (1995) ). " 'The last antecedent is the last word, phrase or clause that can be made an antecedent without impairing the meaning of the sentence.' " Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re Estate of Kurtzman, 65 Wash.2d 260 , 264, 396 P.2d 786 (1964) ). ¶ 44 Applying the last antecedent rule, the final clause, "before the end of such regular session," certainly applies to the immediate antecedent-"without change or amendment." ¶ 45 Indeed, the parties

2010Because we interpret statutes to harmonize with each *492 other instead of conflict, see George, 160 Wash.2d at 738 , 158 P.3d 1169 , the language of RCW 10.99.040 indicates that the comma corollary should not apply. ¶ 19 Finally, applying the last antecedent rule would contradict express legislative intent.

2010Because we interpret statutes to harmonize with each other instead of conflict, see George, 160 Wn.2d at 738 , the language of RCW 10.99.040 indicates that the comma corollary should not apply. ¶19 Finally, applying the last antecedent rule would contradict express legislative intent.

2010See RCW 82.32.010; In re Sehome Park, 127 Wash.2d at 781-82 , 903 P.2d 443 ; Madrid, 145 Wash.App. at 115 , 192 P.3d 909 ; Hogan, 145 Wash.App. at 217 , 192 P.3d 915 . ¶ 40 While applying the last antecedent rule would indeed lead to the Districts' desired result, the implications of such construction are difficult to quantify.

2010See RCW 82.32.010; In re Sehome Park, 127 Wash.2d at 781-82 , 903 P.2d 443 ; Madrid, 145 Wash.App. at 115 , 192 P.3d 909 ; Hogan, 145 Wash.App. at 217 , 192 P.3d 915 . ¶ 40 While applying the last antecedent rule would indeed lead to the Districts' desired result, the implications of such construction are difficult to quantify.

2010See RCW 82.32.010; In re Sehome Park, 127 Wash.2d at 781-82 , 903 P.2d 443 ; Madrid, 145 Wash.App. at 115 , 192 P.3d 909 ; Hogan, 145 Wash.App. at 217 , 192 P.3d 915 . ¶ 40 While applying the last antecedent rule would indeed lead to the Districts' desired result, the implications of such construction are difficult to quantify.

2010See RCW 82.32.010; In re Sehome Park, 127 Wash.2d at 781-82 , 903 P.2d 443 ; Madrid, 145 Wash.App. at 115 , 192 P.3d 909 ; Hogan, 145 Wash.App. at 217 , 192 P.3d 915 . ¶ 40 While applying the last antecedent rule would indeed lead to the Districts' desired result, the implications of such construction are difficult to quantify.

1983Grange argues the last antecedent rule as set forth in Davis v. Gibbs, 39 Wn.2d 481 , 236 P.2d 545 (1951) is controlling.

1983Grange argues the last antecedent rule as set forth in Davis v. Gibbs, 39 Wn.2d 481 , 236 P.2d 545 (1951) is controlling.

2026“The last antecedent rule states that ‘unless a contrary intention appears in the statute, qualifying words and phrases refer to the last antecedent[.]’ ” State v. Bunker, 144 Wn. App. 407, 418 , 183 P.3d 1086 (2008) (quoting City of Spokane v. Spokane County, 158 Wn.2d 661, 673 , 146 P.3d 893 (2006)).

2026“The last antecedent rule states that ‘unless a contrary intention appears in the statute, qualifying words and phrases refer to the last antecedent[.]’ ” State v. Bunker, 144 Wn. App. 407, 418 , 183 P.3d 1086 (2008) (quoting City of Spokane v. Spokane County, 158 Wn.2d 661, 673 , 146 P.3d 893 (2006)).

2015State v. Acrey, 135 Wn.

2013App. 938,943-44 , 146 P.3d 1215 (2006) (noting the last antecedent rule of statutory interpretation, under which the qualifying words refer to the last antecedent, "affirmative conditions," rather than "crime­ related prohibitions"); State v. Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106, 114 , 156 P.3d 201 (2007).

2013Mr. Slaugh responds that a corollary to the last antecedent rule is that "the presence of a comma before the qualifying phrase is evidence that the qualifier is intended to apply to all antecedents instead of only the immediately preceding one." Br. of Appellant at 13 (citing Judson v. Associated Meats & Seafoods, 32 Wn.

2013The department and Lockheed Martin argue that applying the last antecedent rule compels the conclusion that the proviso at issue qualifies only the third clause, dictating the duration of treatment of workers determined to have a permanent total disability. ¶22 Mr. Slaugh responds that a corollary to the last antecedent rule is that “the presence of a comma before the qualifying phrase is evidence that the qualifier is intended to apply to all antecedents instead of only the immediately preceding one.” Br. of Appellant at 13 (citing Judson v. Associated Meats & Seafoods, 32 Wn.

2006Drebick, 156 Wash.2d at 295 , 126 P.3d 802 ; Advanced Silicon, 156 Wash.2d at 90 , 124 P.3d 294 . ¶ 17 When evaluating the language of a statute, we apply the last antecedent rule: "`unless a contrary intention appears in the statute, qualifying words and phrases refer to the last antecedent.'" Berrocal, 155 Wash.2d at 593 , 121 P.3d 82 (quoting In re Sehome Park Care Ctr., 127 Wash.2d 774, 781 , 903 P.2d 443 (1995)); In re Pers.

2006Drebick, 156 Wn.2d at 295 ; Advanced Silicon, 156 Wn.2d at 90 . ¶17 When evaluating the language of a statute, we apply the last antecedent rule: “ ‘unless a contrary intention appears in the statute, qualifying words and phrases refer to the last antecedent.’ ” Berrocal, 155 Wn.2d at 593 (quoting In re Sehome Park Care Ctr., Inc., 127 Wn.2d 774, 781 , 903 P.2d 443 (1995)); In re Pers.

2006Drebick, 156 Wash.2d at 295 , 126 P.3d 802 ; Advanced Silicon, 156 Wash.2d at 90 , 124 P.3d 294 . ¶ 17 When evaluating the language of a statute, we apply the last antecedent rule: "`unless a contrary intention appears in the statute, qualifying words and phrases refer to the last antecedent.'" Berrocal, 155 Wash.2d at 593 , 121 P.3d 82 (quoting In re Sehome Park Care Ctr., 127 Wash.2d 774, 781 , 903 P.2d 443 (1995)); In re Pers.

2006Drebick, 156 Wn.2d at 295 ; Advanced Silicon, 156 Wn.2d at 90 . ¶17 When evaluating the language of a statute, we apply the last antecedent rule: “ ‘unless a contrary intention appears in the statute, qualifying words and phrases refer to the last antecedent.’ ” Berrocal, 155 Wn.2d at 593 (quoting In re Sehome Park Care Ctr., Inc., 127 Wn.2d 774, 781 , 903 P.2d 443 (1995)); In re Pers.

2005Described succinctly, "[t]he result [would be] that subsection (5)(j) exempts workers who are required to live or sleep at the workplace, but only for those hours during which they are not engaged in active duties." Id. at 563-64 , 85 P.3d 969 .

2005Described succinctly, “[t]he result [would be] that subsection (5)(j) exempts workers who are required to live or sleep at the workplace, but only for those hours during which they are not engaged in active duties.” Id. at 563-64 .

2004Wentz, 149 Wash.2d 342, 351 , 68 P.3d 282 (2003) (quoting In re Sehome Park Care Ctr., Inc., 127 Wash.2d 774, 781 , 903 P.2d 443 (1995)).

2004Wentz, 149 Wn.2d at 351 (quoting In re Sehome Park Care Ctr., Inc., 127 Wn.2d 774, 781 , 903 P.2d 443 (1995)).

2025Matter of Marriage of Cardwell, 16 Wn.

2024While the MWA more specifically identifies potential employers as “any individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, or any person or group of persons,” nothing in that language expresses an intent to depart from 7 Grayson also cites Brown v. Scott Paper Worldwide Co., 143 Wn.2d 349 , 357- 58, 20 P.3d 921 (2001), to support his argument that we should apply the last antecedent rule.

2024While the MWA more specifically identifies potential employers as “any individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, or any person or group of persons,” nothing in that language expresses an intent to depart from 7 Grayson also cites Brown v. Scott Paper Worldwide Co., 143 Wn.2d 349 , 357- 58, 20 P.3d 921 (2001), to support his argument that we should apply the last antecedent rule.

2024App. 439, 450-51 , 312 P.3d 676 (2013) (quoting State v. Bunker, 169 Wn.2d 571, 578 , 238 P.3d 487 (2010)).7 And here, a related statute shows a contrary intent.

2024But we do not apply the last antecedent rule “ ‘if other factors, such as context and language in related statutes, indicate contrary legislative intent.’ ” Dep’t of Labor & Indus. v. Slaugh, 177 Wn.