Opinion ID: 1707328
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Standing Issue

Text: Although the lower court granted summary judgment to appellee Dye on the basis of lack of standing, this Court may affirm the lower court's grant of summary judgment on grounds other than that which the trial court used. Brocato v. Mississippi Publishers Corp., 503 So.2d 241, 244 (Miss. 1987); Hickox By and Through Hickox v. Holleman, 502 So.2d 626 (Miss. 1987). In Hickox, the Court, holding that it is not restricted to the reasons the trial court gave for its decision to direct a verdict, said: Appellate courts are not in the business of reversing a trial court when it has made a correct ruling or decision. We are first interested in the result of the decision, and if it is correct we are not concerned with the route  straight path or detour  which the trial court took to get there... . An appellee is entitled to argue and rely upon any ground sufficient to sustain the judgment below. Hickox by and through Hickox v. Holleman, 502 So.2d 626, 635 (Miss. 1987) (citations omitted). In Stewart v. Walls, 534 So.2d 1033, 1035 (Miss. 1988), the Court observed: It is a familiar rule that this Court will affirm the lower court where the right result is reached, even though we may disagree with the reason for the result. We find that the lower court was correct in granting summary judgment on behalf of Walls, but for the reasons set forth in this opinion. Therefore, the decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed. We are of the opinion that, on the substantive ground neither the statute creating the Joint Legislative Budget Committee nor appellee Dye's service on the committee constitutes a violation of the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PRATHER, ROBERTSON, ANDERSON and BLASS, JJ., concur. SULLIVAN, J., and HAWKINS, P.J., dissent. DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PITTMAN, J., not participating.