recognizing that the procedural rules governing indirect criminal contempt reflect the required "procedural due process safeguards"
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that the procedural rules governing indirect criminal contempt reflect the required "procedural due process safeguards"
- describing the “tipsy coach doctrine” which permits a reviewing court to affirm the decision of a lower court that reaches the right result for the wrong reason
- describing “the tipsy coachman doctrine” permitting a reviewing court to affirm the decision of a lower court that reaches the right result for the wrong reason
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CANADY, J.,
dissenting.
In the decision on review, the First District reversed the trial court’s order finding the respondent to be in direct criminal contempt. In the proceedings before this Court, the State has not sought to overturn the district court’s reversal of the trial court’s order. Instead, the State has sought an advisory opinion on the certified question. This Court should not be in the business of issuing advisory opinions except as specifically authorized by the Florida Constitution. “It is the rule that before a person may bring an appeal he must be a party or privy to the record and must show that he is, or will be, injuriously affected by the order sought to be reviewed.” King v. Brown, 55 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla.1951). Accordingly, this case should be dismissed. I dissent.