Gillespie v. McCombs
This text of 139 So. 3d 489 (Gillespie v. McCombs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Although the court’s March 15, 2012 order was improper, we affirm on the tipsy coachman doctrine, which “allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that ‘reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons’ so long as ‘there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.’ ” Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 906 (Fla.2002). Had the judge considered the third amended complaint, it would nonetheless have been subject to dismissal with prejudice. See Barrett v. City of Margate, 743 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
139 So. 3d 489, 2014 WL 2480264, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gillespie-v-mccombs-fladistctapp-2014.