Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Citation
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Parent Document
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2007-05-17
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6588591/taylor-v-burke/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (31)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
Full Text
815 charsWe are also aware of the principle of statutory construction known as the “last antecedent rule,” which may be used to resolve an ambiguity in the statutory language. The last antecedent rule is a “general rule of statutory as well as grammatical construction that a modifying clause is confined to the last antecedent unless there is something in the subject matter or dominant purpose which requires a different interpretation.” Hopkins v. Hopkins, 287 Mass. 542, 547 (1934). While one might argue that this rule requires “bank” to be the last antecedent, and thus the proper subject of the modifying clause, we conclude that both the subject matter and the dominant purpose *82require a reading such that the entire clause modify “interest-bearing account in a bank” rather than just the last antecedent, “bank.”