Difference between revisions of "Tipsy coachman rule"

Revision as of 11:28, October 5, 2007

RAPTOR JESUS

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The "tipsy coachman rule" is a court doctrine that requires an appellate court to uphold a lower court judgment on any reason possible, even if the reason stated by the lower court was wrong.  The party that is defending a judgment may raise new arguments not raised in the court below, but the party that is attempting to overturn a judgment may not raise new arguments.  This principle is followed universally, but this name is only used in Georgia and Florida.
+<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="red">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
+<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="orange">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
-In 1879 the Georgia Supreme Court quoted Goldsmith's poem ''Retaliation'' in announcing this doctrine:
+<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="yellow">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
+<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="green">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
-"The pupil of impulse, it forc'd him along,
+<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="blue">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
-His conduct still right, with his argument wrong;
+<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="indigo">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
-Still aiming at honor, yet fearing to roam,
+<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="purple">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
-The coachman was tipsy, the chariot drove home."
-''Lee v. Porter'', 63 Ga. 345, 346 (1879).  That court noted, "It not infrequently happens that a judgment is affirmed upon a theory of the case which did not occur to the court that rendered it, or which did occur and was expressly repudiated. The human mind is so constituted that in many instances it finds the truth when wholly unable to find the way that leads to it."  ''Id.''
-The Florida Supreme Court adopted this doctrine in ''Carraway v. Armour & Co.'', 156 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1963).
-[[category:law]]

Difference between revisions of "Tipsy coachman rule"

Revision as of 11:28, October 5, 2007

Navigation menu

Search