Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): State’s proffered alternative ground for affirming the trial court’s ruling. ZIMMERMAN, C.J., HOWE, DURHAM and RUSSON, JJ., concur. 1 . The State contends that this limitation in the scope of the warrant was merely the result of a technical oversight. 2 . The trial court employed this term in its memorandum decision, and the Court of Appeals generally noted that the trial court had found the warrant to be "invalid." These terms, however, may be somewhat misleading. It does not appear that the trial court found there was an insubstantial basis for issui ah 1984) (refusing to address argument offered on appeal in defense of lower court’s decision where that argument was not raised in pleadings or argued by parties below); Branch v. Western Petroleum, Inc., 657 P.2d 267, 276 (Utah 1982) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Since deciding Langnes, the United States 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that appellate court can uphold a trial courts ruling on any ground appearing in the record whether urged in the trial court or not (B) holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court (C) holding that appellate court in affirming trial courts decision may rely in part on a ground not presented to trial court (D) holding an appellate court is not limited to the grounds offered by the trial court in support of its decision and may affirm on any ground on which additional factual findings are not required (E) holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment on ground not presented by movant in writing
Output (English): holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment on ground not presented by movant in writing