holding that Supreme Court rarely rules on issues not raised by parties as ”[o]r-dinarily, this Court confines itself rather closely to deciding only those issues which the parties present. We take the view that counsel and the courts below have sufficiently identified the issues; that we need not redefine the question in the last stage of the litigation.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that Supreme Court rarely rules on issues not raised by parties as ”[o]r-dinarily, this Court confines itself rather closely to deciding only those issues which the parties present. We take the view that counsel and the courts below have sufficiently identified the issues; that we need not redefine the question in the last stage of the litigation.”
- holding the Supreme Court confines its rulings to those issues presented by the parties
- addressing the limited circumstances under which the Supreme Court will consider issues not raised below
- "When the facts reveal a fundamental basis for decision not presented by the parties, it is our duty to address the issue to avoid a misleading application of the law."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COMBS, J.,
dissents and would affirm the Court of Appeals on the ground that the requirements of the “contact rule” were satisfied by the exploratory surgery.