Hobart Corp. v. Dayton Power & Light Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting the expert surgeon's \videotaped deposition was in evidence once it was played at trial\
• applying the well-settled principle that appeals are taken from orders and not opinions, and that orders may be affirmed for reasons different from those set forth by the trial court
• permitting appellate courts to affirm for reasons other than those expressed by the trial court because \appeals are taken from orders and judgments and not from opinions\ (quoting Do-Wop Corp. v. City of Rahway, 168 N.J. 191, 199 (2001))
• first quoting Risko v. Thompson Muller Auto. Grp., Inc., 206 N.J. 506, 522 (2011); then citing R. 2:10-1
• \Unfair surprise is a proper basis to exclude evidence not properly provided to the opposing party during discovery.\
• \A trial court judgment that reaches the proper conclusion must be affirmed even if it is based on the wrong reasoning.\ (citing Isko v. Plan. Bd. of Livingston, 51 N.J. 162, 175 (1968))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).