Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 11/12/2003

Barnhart v. Thomas

Citations

  • 540 U.S. 20
  • 124 S. Ct. 376
  • 157 L. Ed. 2d 333
  • 2003 U.S. LEXIS 8348

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • illustrating that “antecedent” for purposes of the rule means the immediately adjacent “noun or phrase”
  • explaining that the doctrine applies to \limiting clause[s] or phrase[s]\ that are \read as modifying only the noun or phrase that [they] immediately follow[ ]\
  • stating that the rule of the last antecedent “is not absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning”
  • stating that the rule of the last antecedent \is not absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning\
  • noting that the rule of the last antecedent “can assuredly be overcome by other indi-cia of meaning”
  • observing that under the grammatical “rule of the last antecedent,” any limiting clause or phrase should be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Scalia, Scaua

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

494 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Barnhart v. Thomas

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.