Ek v. Department of Children and Family

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the \[t]ipsy [c]oachman\ doctrine \does not rescue parties from their own inattention to important legal detail\
• “[the appellee’s] primary ground for affir-mance was not known either to us or opposing counsel until articulated during oral argument. We are unwilling to allow [the appellee] to invoke the [tipsy coachman] doctrine under these circumstances.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).