Abuse Of Discretion In Denying Continuance

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

• United States v. Houlihan
  332 F.2d 8· 2d Cir.· 1964-05-19 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excusing a juror in the absence of counsel due to an emergency, nor was there a fatal variance or insufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. Fessel
  531 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-20 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to seek court-appointed psychiatric assistance for an insanity defense, and that the trial judge abused his discretion by denying a continuance.
• Abramson v. Univ. OF Haw.
  594 F.2d 202· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-28 ·cited 59×
  The court held that summary judgment on Title VII claims was improper because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the final date of tenure denial and retaliation claims are actionable if occurring after the 1972 amendments. The court affirmed the dismissal of the eq
• Avila-Murrieta v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  762 F.2d 733· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that an alien's lawful domicile for section 212(c) purposes terminates when the alien concedes deportability and fails to challenge the merits of the deportation order, even if awaiting discretionary relief.
• United States v. Fearwell
  595 F.2d 771· D.C. Cir.· 1978-12-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that evidence of a prior attempted petit larceny conviction is not admissible for impeachment under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) because the crime does not involve dishonesty or false statement. However, the court remanded to determine if the erroneous ruling
• State v. Prieto
  439 So. 2d 288· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-09-27 ·cited 28×
  The trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial because none of the three alleged errors—the denial of a continuance, comments on the defendant's post-arrest silence when no Fifth Amendment right was invoked, and the judge's ex parte communication to the jury withou
• United States v. Lewis
  565 F.2d 1248· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the photographic identification was not impermissibly suggestive, the identification testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(C), the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion, and the contempt conviction was proper.
• United States v. Costa
  425 F.2d 950· 2d Cir.· 1969-12-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a continuance to locate the informant and that the defendant's prior conviction could be used for impeachment.
• Elder v. United States
  142 F.2d 199· 9th Cir.· 1944-01-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to state a crime, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motions.
• United States v. Coleman Herbert Dudley
  436 F.2d 1057· 6th Cir.· 1971-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction stands because the appeal board is presumed to have reviewed his classification de novo, and the denial of a continuance to subpoena appeal board members was not an abuse of discretion.
• Robertson v. Robertson
  78 So. 3d 76· Fla. 5th DCA· 2012-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court reversed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the former wife's motion to continue the trial. This denial prevented her from presenting expert testimony on the enhanced value of a website bu
• United States v. Garman
  748 F.2d 218· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that venue was proper in the District of Maryland and that the denial of a continuance to present cumulative evidence was not an abuse of discretion or a violation of the defendant's rights. The jury instructions regarding willfulness were also deemed proper.
• Davis v. State
  313 So. 3d 835· Fla. 2d DCA· 2021-01-15 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court reversed a conviction for delivery of marijuana to a minor, finding the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance when the State added a new charge on the first day of trial. The court affirmed a conviction for battery, finding the prosecutor'
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hijos de Ricardo Vela, Inc.
  475 F.2d 58· 1st Cir.· 1973-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Trial Examiner did not abuse her discretion in denying a continuance, and therefore the Board's order is enforceable.
• Kasdaglis v. Dep't OF Health OF the State of Fla.
  827 So. 2d 328· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-09-25 ·cited 3×
  A Florida appellate court reversed the Department of Health's disciplinary order against a licensed clinical social worker, finding that the agency violated statutory deadlines, failed to prove the charges with competent evidence, and imposed a penalty that created an ethical con
• Higgins v. Higgins
  351 So. 3d 1249· Fla. 2d DCA· 2022-12-02 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reversed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, in part, because the trial court abused its discretion by denying the wife's motion for a continuance. The wife was unable to attend the Zoom hearing due to poor internet connection while visiting family ab
• United States v. Dupart
  483 F.2d 1393· 5th Cir.· 1973-09-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecutor's closing argument did not necessitate a mistrial and any prejudice was cured by the jury instructions.
• Jude v. Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  407 F.2d 955· 6th Cir.· 1969-03-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury could reasonably conclude the insurance agent knew of the insured's alcoholism, thus precluding the insurer from voiding the policy based on false answers about drinking habits.
• 1385 Starkey v. Superior Fence & Rail of Pinellas Co., Inc.
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-01-18 ·cited 1×
  Starkey, an administratively dissolved LLC, was precluded from participating in trial by the trial court, resulting in a default judgment in favor of Superior Fence on a civil theft claim. The court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Starkey's
• Smith v. State
  873 So. 2d 1289· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-06-07 ·cited 1×
  Robert Leroy Smith appealed his convictions for robbery, aggravated battery, burglary, grand theft auto, and felony driving with suspended license. The court found two reversible errors: the trial court improperly reclassified an aggravated battery conviction as a first-degree fe
• Yacht Assist, Inc. v. CRP LMC Prop CO LLC
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-12-14
  Aetna's comprehensive liability insurance policy covered Display's liability to Hase despite claiming policy defenses, because Aetna was given notice and opportunity to defend the underlying action against Display and is bound by the resulting judgment through the doctrine of vou
• Aquasol Condo Assoc. v. HSBC Bank USA
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-10-31
  An attorney who makes statements without an objectively reasonable factual basis concerning the qualifications or integrity of judges violates Rule 4-8.2(a) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a), warranting sanctions including re
• Taylor v. State
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2018-08-27
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and advancing the suppression hearing where it bifurcated the proceedings, giving the defendant over thirty days to secure witnesses and prepare. The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the suppressio
• Iaroslav Matlaga v. State
  764 So. 2d 922· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-08-16
  Affirmed convictions for attempted second-degree murder based on competent evidence of legal sanity, but reversed and remanded on sentencing because the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance to obtain medical records from Ukraine.
• United States v. Lewis
  991 F.2d 524· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-09
  The court held that prior felony convictions arising from separate criminal episodes on separate days can be counted individually for Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate his prior guilty pleas were constitutionally invalid due to in