We review this issue of statutory interpretation de novo.Vermillion State Bank v. State by Dep't of Transp. , 895 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Minn. App. 2017). We interpret a statute by applying the plain meaning of its terms when those terms are unambiguous in context.
Although Connecticut appellate courts previously have not had the opportunity to apply the last antecedent rule to the term "such" or the phrase "such person," our trial courts and other jurisdictions consistently have applied this rule to the phrase "such person," holding that the phrase modifies or refers to the phrase immediately preceding it in the statute. See, e.g., Soler v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. , Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. CV-12-6016003-S, 2013 WL 5716857 (October 2, 2013) (56 Conn. L. Rptr. 704, 705 ); Montville v. Loiler , Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV-12-6012277-S, 2013 WL 5969553 (July 10, 2013) (57 Conn. L. Rptr. 50, 52 ); see also People ex rel. Negron v. Superintendent , 36 N.Y.3d 32, 37, 160 N.E.3d 1266, 136 N.Y.S.3d 819 (2020) ; Vermillion State Bank v. Dept. of Transportation , 895 N.W.2d 269, 272–73 (Minn. App. 2017) ; State v. Wagner , 295 Neb. 132, 138–39, 888 N.W.2d 357 (2016) ; Board of Trustees of Firemen's Relief & Pension Fund v. Templeton , 184 Okla. 281, 284–85, 86 P.2d 1000 (1939). When we apply the last antecedent rule to the language of § 46b-16a (a), including the rule's well established exception when commas are present in the language at issue, the phrase "such person" clearly refers back to the applicant.
"When legislative intent is clear from the statute's plain and unambiguous language, this court interprets the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to other principles of statutory interpretation." Vermillion State Bank v. State, Dep't of Transp. , 895 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted). Minn. Stat. § 429.081 states:
It is a well-established principle of law that "[w]hen legislative intent is clear from the statute's plain and unambiguous language, [this court] interpret[s] the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to other principles of statutory interpretation." Vermillion State Bank v. State, Dep't of Transp., 895 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted). When the plain meaning of a statute is clear and unambiguous, "the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit."