Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Trial Court Rulings

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

• United States v. Johnson
  285 F.2d 35· 9th Cir.· 1960-12-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the government's assignments of error were without merit, and the jury's award of just compensation was supported by competent evidence.
• Caisson Corp. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
  622 F.2d 672· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find an express oral contract between Caisson and Ingersoll-Rand, and that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the distributor agreement or restricting cross-examination of an expert witness.
• United States v. Elorduy
  612 F.2d 986· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellant's arguments regarding the Speedy Trial Act, Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, entrapment, and unlawful firearm possession lacked merit.
• Rivera v. State
  840 So. 2d 284· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-01-31 ·cited 31×
  A prosecutor's comment during closing argument that the jury would have to find a victim's identification unworthy of belief to acquit a defendant does not improperly shift the burden of proof when the defendant's entire defense consists of challenging the victim's identification
• United States v. Cutler
  676 F.2d 1245· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the conviction on Count Two should be vacated rather than remanded for a new trial, as the government conceded the conviction had no practical consequences.
• Daves v. Payless Cashways, Inc.
  661 F.2d 1022· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-20 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint, and affirmed the finding that she failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination.
• United States v. Ruehrup
  333 F.2d 641· 7th Cir.· 1964-06-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that venue was properly established in the district where the false statements were prepared and mailed, and that a statement signed by the defendant after being informed of his rights was admissible, even if it contained information about unrelated wrongdoing used
• Md. Cas. Co. v. Rickenbaker
  146 F.2d 751· 4th Cir.· 1944-12-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the insurer's motion to amend its answer to include the defense that the injured party was an employee excluded from coverage, as this denial could lead to manifest injustice.
• Thorne v. State
  271 So. 3d 177· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-05-13 ·cited 12×
  The trial court erred in excluding evidence that the victim had reported three other men as sexual assailants in a November 2013 interview but did not name the defendant, as this evidence was not barred by the Rape Shield statute (which applies only to consensual sexual activity)
• United States v. Pomerantz
  683 F.2d 352· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 10×
  The admission of testimony regarding the defendant possessing a gun during the commission of the crime was not reversible error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy charge.
• United States v. Bennett
  956 F.2d 1476· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts on the drug possession and firearm charges.
• Joseph Muller Corp. Zurich v. Societe Anonyme de Gerance ET D'Armement
  508 F.2d 814· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute due to an unexplained and unreasonable delay in service.
• Wright v. State
  317 So. 3d 237· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-03-03 ·cited 3×
  The trial court properly admitted collateral crimes evidence to prove identity based on ballistic analysis linking the same firearm used in multiple robberies, and any evidentiary errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given Wright's detailed recorded confession to the su
• Fleming v. State
  366 So. 3d 1179· Fla. 1st DCA· 2023-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed a conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying challenges for cause against two prospective jurors. The court found that while the jurors expressed personal beliefs about testifying, they ultimately affirmed they co
• Hialeah Hosp., Inc. v. Hayes-Boursiquot
  316 So. 3d 754· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-03-24 ·cited 2×
  A trial court properly sustains a Melbourne challenge to a peremptory strike when the record demonstrates a pattern of striking jurors of a protected racial class and the proffered race-neutral explanations are found pretextual. A trial court does not abuse its discretion in deny
• Rivera v. Leidimar C. Lopes
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-09-02
  Once evidence is properly excluded under the rules of evidence, it does not legally exist for jury consideration, and opposing counsel may argue its absence without committing reversible error. Although the defendant's categorical assertion that no one from Family Medical Group h
• Evin A. Figueroa Hernandez v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-07-22
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting DNA evidence where the analyst testified to standard procedures, peer review, and general acceptance in the scientific community, and the multiple counts did not violate double jeopardy because each count charged a distinc
• Evin A. Figueroa Hernandez v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-07-22
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting DNA evidence where the analyst testified to standard procedures, peer review, and general acceptance in the scientific community, and the multiple counts did not violate double jeopardy because each count charged a distinc
• Dowdell v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-10-15
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the Nelson hearing, any error in the PRR sentencing would be harmless, and the trial court properly declined to hold a competency hearing because no reasonable grounds existed to question Dowdell's competency.
• Eloyn Ingraham v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2025-03-19
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motions to sever the joint trial. A joint trial does not require severance merely because co-defendants blame each other, provided each defendant receives a fair trial and can adequately present his defense.
• Norge Cruz v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-04-17
  A defendant's recorded jailhouse instructions to his wife to delete cellphone data to prevent police investigation constitutes competent, substantial evidence of criminal conspiracy to tamper with physical evidence, and the trial court properly denied the defendant's motions for
• Lai v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. (Duval County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-05
  Francis Lai, an inmate serving a life sentence for first-degree murder and burglary, sought federal habeas relief challenging his state conviction by raising claims of prosecutorial misconduct, improper comments on his right to remain silent, and discriminatory jury selection. Th
• McArthur v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-04-16
  Ashley McArthur was convicted of first-degree murder. She appealed, arguing the jury saw a prejudicial photo, her statements to police violated Miranda, cell phone records were improperly obtained, and the victim's texts were inadmissible hearsay. The appellate court affirmed the
• Cori Lamar Butler v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-03-31
  Although a trial court may abuse its discretion in excluding a victim's next of kin from trial proceedings under Marsy's Law, a defendant is not entitled to relief absent a showing of prejudice. The constitutional right to be present does not conflict with the accused's right to
• United States v. Frankhauser
  878 F.2d 1571· 1st Cir.· 1989-07-14
  The court held that the district court did not err in severing the appellant's trial, denying a lengthy continuance, or in refusing to grant a new trial based on alleged withholding of exculpatory material.
• United States v. Wendt
  698 F.2d 933· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-22
  The court held that the prosecutor's comment during closing argument, while close to the line, did not impermissibly refer to the defendant's failure to testify and thus did not warrant a mistrial.