Court Opinion

ID: 9705314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:02:05.613675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:09.788281
License: Public Domain

CATHELL, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority concludes:
There is no necessity for this court to review the evidence heard by Designee McElroy to determine whether it was substantial and therefore could have supported the conclusion reached. The error made was one of law, i.e.; an incorrect interpretation and application of Paragraph C of the consent order.
I agree with the majority that there was an error of law. The majority further concludes that:
[T]he designee and the court below were erroneous in their reasoning____
I also agree. Thus, the designee and the court below were wrong in their reasoning and in their application of the law. Nevertheless, the majority affirms. As I previously indicated in a dissent to a prior incarnation of the majority’s opinion, I believe it to be inappropriate for us, under the facts of the case, to affirm a decision never made below. *117Reversal, not affirmance, is appropriate where the lower court applied the wrong law and used the wrong reasoning.