modifying clause in Illinois

2025Navigators cites a passage in which the court indicates that the use of a comma was a “deliberate drafting choice to separate the modifying clause from the words that immediately precede it.” Id. at 468 .

1976(See People v. Thomas, 45 Ill. 2d 68, 72 .) Under this canon only “any other cash benefit” 1 would be modified by the phrase “over and above the salary established by the appropriate ordinance.” The canon is not applicable where a further inclusion is clearly required by the intent and meaning of the context. 73 Am.

1908Not only were the facts there different from those in the case now under consideration, but the receipt or release in question there was not under seal, and the court clearly intended not to include a release under seal as coming within the doctrine laid down in that case, for we stated, (p. 606,) “the payment of a less sum is not a satisfaction of a larger sum, even when so received, without a release by deed.” The only inference that can be drawn from this modifying clause, “without a release by deed,” must necessarily be, that if there was a release by deed the rule laid down would not appl

1894(Toledo, Wabash and Western Railway Co. v. Baddeley, 54 Ill. 19 ; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Able, 59 id. 131 ; McNulta v. Ensch, 134 id. 46 .) So, even as modified and given to the jury, the instructions stated the law more favorably for appellant than it was entitled to have it given, and therefore it has no cause for complaint.

1894(Toledo, Wabash and Western Railway Co. v. Baddeley, 54 Ill. 19 ; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Able, 59 id. 131 ; McNulta v. Ensch, 134 id. 46 .) So, even as modified and given to the jury, the instructions stated the law more favorably for appellant than it was entitled to have it given, and therefore it has no cause for complaint.