If you’ve ever agonized over a comma in a brief, good news: you’re not alone. Judges are doing it too — and lately, they’re doing it in ways that actually decide cases. Yes, grammar. Real outcomes. Federal courts. It’s a whole thing.
A Past Participle Walks Into Court…
In one recent case, everything turned on the word “designated.” The court basically said, “Look, this isn’t about when you were designated — it’s about whether you are designated right now.” That tiny grammatical choice determined whether a Regional Center had to pay into a federal oversight fund.
One word. One tense. Real money on the line.
Then There’s the “Or” Problem
Another case came down to how a list was written. Two items, separated by “or.” The court used the last antecedent rule — which is a fancy way of saying “the modifier at the end usually applies only to the last thing in the list.”
That interpretation changed which criminal penalties had to be deposited into a victims’ fund. Again: grammar = dollars.
Why This Matters (Even If You’re Not a Grammar Nerd)
These cases remind us that grammar isn’t just about sounding polished. In legal writing, grammar shapes meaning — and meaning shapes outcomes. When statutes or contracts get messy (and let’s be honest, they often do), courts turn to grammar rules to figure out what the text actually says.
The Simple Takeaway
Write clearly. Use punctuation intentionally. Don’t let a stray modifier or vague list structure become the reason your client ends up in litigation.
Good grammar isn’t just good writing — it’s good law.