State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Levine

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the tipsy coachman doctrine permits a reviewing court to affirm the decision of a lower court that reaches the right result for the wrong reason
• explaining that tipsy coachman doctrine could not be applied in that case because the record did not provide an adequate basis for the reviewing court to reach a conclusion on an issue as a pure matter of law
• \[T]he key to applying the tipsy coachman doctrine is that the record before the trial court must support the alternative theory or principle of law.\
• \[T]he key to applying the tipsy coachman doctrine is that the record before the trial court must support the alternative theory or principle of law.\
• “[T]he ‘tipsy coachman’ doctrine . . . permits a reviewing court to affirm a decision from a lower tribunal that reaches the right result for the wrong reasons so long as ‘there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.’” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).