important factor which the court should consider, though likelihood of success on the merits should not be the sole factor reviewed. We conclude that it is not desirable to adopt a specific set of factors which the appellate court, in each instance, must review when making its determination. (But cf. Ruiz v. Estelle (5th Cir. 1981), 650 F.2d 555, 565 (four factors to consider when determining whether the party has made a sufficient showing for the court to grant a stay).) Rather, we believe that the court should have a wide degree of latitude when exercising its discretion. There are numerous different factors which may be relevant when the court makes its determination and, by necessity, these factors will vary depending on the facts of the case. 4A C.J.S Appeal & Error §636 (1957) (<HOLDING>); 4 Am. Jur. 2d Appeal & Error §367 (1962)
recognizing numerous different grounds which may be relied upon for granting a stay and that in general a stay will be allowed or refused on the particular grounds best fitting the exigencies of the individual case and with a view to doing justice between the parties holding that court can affirm administrative order only on grounds on which agency relied and noting that the orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained recognizing that this court may affirm summary judgment on grounds other than those relied upon by the motion justice holding that a stay of execution is only appropriate where the movant demonstrates substantial grounds upon which relief might be granted holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds