Abuse Of Discretion (Appellate Review)

31 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Gorsalitz v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp.
  429 F.2d 1033· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-17 ·cited 192×
• Walter v. Walter
  464 So. 2d 538· Fla.· 1985-02-14 ·cited 132×
  The Florida Supreme Court rejected a Fifth District Court of Appeal decision that restricted trial courts' discretionary authority to award permanent alimony by requiring it only as a last resort. The Court held that trial courts must retain flexible discretion to award permanent
• United States v. Vega
  860 F.2d 779· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 115×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act, nor in admitting voice identification testimony, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• ELI Lilly & Co., Inc. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc.
  460 F.2d 1096· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-18 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, finding the patent valid and infringed, and that the procedural conduct of the trial court was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Rovetuso
  768 F.2d 809· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-16 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and that sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions for attempting to interfere with a witness and obstructing justice.
• United States v. Mitchell
  580 F.2d 789· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-21 ·cited 50×
  The Attorney General is not authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 3613 to seek compensatory or punitive damages on behalf of injured parties, as the statute limits the Attorney General to seeking equitable relief. The award of costs to the government was proper.
• Battle v. Park Anderson
  614 F.2d 251· 10th Cir.· 1980-01-21 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, finding the attorney represented the prevailing party and the award was supported by substantial evidence. The court remanded for further findings regarding inmate access to courts.
• Locklin v. Switzer Bros., Inc.
  299 F.2d 160· 9th Cir.· 1961-11-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Kazenas patent was valid and infringed, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting post-trial evidence or in its findings regarding patentability and infringement.
• Craighead v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc.
  899 F.2d 485· 6th Cir.· 1990-03-28 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' federal securities and RICO claims, finding that the allegations lacked the requisite particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and that certain statutes and rules did not provide for private causes of action.
• Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Lucinda Naugle
  103 So. 3d 944· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-12-12 ·cited 27×
  Philip Morris USA appeals a judgment awarding Lucinda Naugle $36.7 million for injuries caused by cigarette addiction. The court affirmed the liability findings under Engle tobacco litigation principles but reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages, finding the jury's awar
• Tarter v. Raybuck
  742 F.2d 977· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-31 ·cited 27×
  The court held that school officials had reasonable cause to search a student based on their observations and that the search was reasonable under the circumstances, affirming the district court's decision on different grounds. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees t
• Philip Banks v. Wolk
  918 F.2d 418· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-09 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a single real estate fraud scheme, lacking a threat of repetition, does not constitute a RICO pattern for defendants not involved in other alleged schemes. However, multiple fraudulent schemes over time by other defendants, related to RICO enterprises, can est
• Hull v. Eaton Corp.
  825 F.2d 448· D.C. Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a discovery sanction precluding expert testimony, and properly granted summary judgment as plaintiffs could not establish essential elements of their claims without it.
• Tate v. Frey
  735 F.2d 986· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against state corrections officials, as the injunction was based on federal constitutional violations and not solely state law, thus avoiding Eleventh Amendment concerns raise
• Gulf Water Benefaction Co. v. The Pub. Util. Comm'n OF Tex. & the State of Tex.
  674 F.2d 462· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction over state utility rate-making disputes, and that the Chapter XI petition was appropriately dismissed due to lack of prosecution and prospect of arrangement.
• State v. McMAHON
  485 So. 2d 884· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-03-26 ·cited 15×
  The State of Florida appeals a trial court's grant of a new trial in a second-degree murder case. The appellate court reverses, holding that the jury's guilty verdict was supported by substantial, competent evidence and the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a new tria
• Amendola v. Bayer
  907 F.2d 760· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant on claims of breach of oral agreement and breach of fiduciary duty, nor in denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.
• In re Marvin Props., Inc. v. Marvin Props., Inc.
  854 F.2d 1183· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) unambiguously requires a seller to give written notice directly to the buyer to perfect a statutory trust.
• Arbrook, Inc. v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp.
  645 F.2d 273· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the patents in suit were invalid due to anticipation by prior art, but reversed the award of attorney's fees to the defendants, finding no exceptional circumstances.
• Izaak Walton League OF Am. v. ST. Clair
  497 F.2d 849· 8th Cir.· 1974-05-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction required the Forest Service to first determine whether a permit for mining activities should be issued within the BWCA, suspending judicial proceedings until that administrative determination was made.
• Coda M. Fears v. Burris Mfg. Co.
  436 F.2d 1357· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Mississippi Employment Security Law § 11(g)(1) does not create an absolute privilege against disclosure of MESC records in a federal proceeding, and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not implicated.
• Etling v. Sander
  447 F.2d 593· 7th Cir.· 1971-07-28 ·cited 10×
• Rixey v. W. Paces Ferry Hosp., Inc.
  916 F.2d 608· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trials, as there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the doctor and hospital liable for medical malpractice.
• Orrison v. C. Hoffberger Co.
  190 F.2d 787· 4th Cir.· 1951-07-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the patent was invalid due to prior use and affirmed the lower court's decision.
• N. Alaska Env't Ctr. v. Lujan
  961 F.2d 886· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) prepared by the Park Service were adequate under the rule of reason, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving the injunction.
• United States v. Dennis
  843 F.2d 652· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge improperly limited the cross-examination of a key government witness regarding a pretrial conversation with the defense attorney, requiring remand for further findings and potential new trial.
• Jacobs v. Jacques
  310 So. 3d 1018· Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-08-12 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court reversed a postdissolution contempt order and attorney's fee award because the trial court failed to make the required written findings. The court remanded the case for the trial court to enter a proper order with the necessary findings.
• Universal Mortg. Co., Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co.
  799 F.2d 458· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-30 ·cited 2×
  A full credit bid at a foreclosure sale extinguishes the debt, thereby precluding the loss payee from recovering insurance proceeds for damage to the property, regardless of whether the damage occurred before or after the bid, or whether the mortgagee had actual or constructive k
• Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified
  675 F. Supp. 2d 1126· M.D. Fla.· 2009-12-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) bars jurisdiction over the shipwreck and its contents, as they are the property of Spain and not subject to U.S. court adjudication.
• DOE v. Cutter Biological, Inc.
  971 F.2d 375· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because Hawaii law, as clarified by the Hawaii Supreme Court, permits claims based on market share liability and negligence, and genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the defendants' knowledge and
• Tornwall v. Carter
  106 So. 2d 96· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-10-17
  A minor judgment creditor sought to void a conveyance of property and assignment of mortgages made by the judgment debtor (Henry E. Tornwall) to his father (Henry A. Tornwall) shortly before the judgment was entered, alleging the transfer was fraudulent and intended to hinder col