Gillespie v. McCombs

139 So. 3d 489, 2014 WL 2480264, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8502
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 4, 2014
DocketNo. 4D12-2473
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Gillespie v. McCombs, 139 So. 3d 489, 2014 WL 2480264, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8502 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

GROSS, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Barrett v. City of Margate
743 So. 2d 1160 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.