Rubick v. Security Instrument Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• “The [last antecedent] rule . . . is that ‘[r]eferential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent.’”
• “If the statute is unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation, and the plain meaning of the words controls.” (Ingram v. Thrope, 747 A.2d 545, 547 (Del. 2000))
• “The rules of statutory construction are well settled. The goal, in all cases, is ‘to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature.’ lf the statute is unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation, and the plain meaning of the words controls.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).