Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review)

12,259 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,650 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Smith v. United States
  331 F.2d 265· 8th Cir.· 1964-04-28 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in calling a co-defendant as a court's witness, nor was the appellant prejudiced by the witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, especially given the jury instructions.
• Holmes v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
  891 So. 2d 1188· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-02-02 ·cited 57×
  Plaintiffs injured in a 1999 Ford Explorer tire rollover sued Firestone and obtained a jury verdict for compensatory damages. The trial court denied their motion to amend the complaint to add a punitive damages claim based on internet-sourced evidence of Firestone's prior knowled
• Barbour v. Brinker Fla., Inc.
  801 So. 2d 953· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-10-12 ·cited 57×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Jury Instructions
  Genevieve Barbour was injured when she slipped on a toilet paper roller mechanism on a restaurant bathroom floor. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Brinker Florida, Inc. despite a jury verdict favoring Barbour, but the appellate court reversed, finding sufficient evi
• United States v. Gjon N. Nivica
  887 F.2d 1110· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 57×
  The court affirmed the disposition of the motion in limine issue, agreeing that precedent foreclosed a different approach. The court also concurred in the result regarding the right to testify, finding no reversible error.
• United States v. Cardenas
  864 F.2d 1528· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the chain of custody for the cocaine was sufficient for admissibility, and that constructive possession and carrying a firearm in a vehicle during a drug trafficking crime are valid grounds for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
• The United States v. Beros
  833 F.2d 455· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to provide a sufficiently precise jury instruction on unanimity regarding the specific acts constituting the offenses, requiring vacation of convictions on those counts.
• United States v. Goodwin
  770 F.2d 631· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for an investigator, that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by the judge's comments regarding her decision to testify, and that the denial of a new trial based on newly
• Optyl Eyewear Fashion Int'l Corp. v. Style Cos., Ltd.
  760 F.2d 1045· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 57×
  The court held that an attorney's motion to disqualify opposing counsel, based on the attorney potentially being a witness, was meritless and brought in bad faith, justifying sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The court also affirmed the reasonableness of the fee award and granted
• Reams v. Blanche Vaughn and Herman Vaughn
  435 So. 2d 879· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-07-07 ·cited 57×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions
  The trial court granted defendants' motion for directed verdict and, alternatively, ordered a new trial in a fraud and misrepresentation case, despite a jury verdict for the plaintiff. The appellate court reversed, holding that evidence supported the plaintiff's fraud claim and t
• In re The Complaint of the United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co., Ltd.
  617 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions, including a preclusion order and a personal monetary sanction against counsel, for the government's repeated failure to obey discovery orders.
• United States v. Henderson
  588 F.2d 157· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-18 ·cited 57×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a continuance, fingerprint evidence was properly admitted, a lesser-included offense instruction was not warranted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Hoyos
  573 F.2d 1111· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-24 ·cited 57×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, excluding hearsay testimony under Rule 804(b)(3) and (b)(5), or refusing to give a special informer instruction.
• Est. OF Beulah Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc.
  900 So. 2d 637· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-03-24 ·cited 56×
  The Estate of Beulah Despain appealed the trial court's denial of a motion to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages against nursing home defendants. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the estate made a sufficient showing under Florida Stat
• Roberts v. State
  670 So. 2d 1042· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-03-13 ·cited 56×
  Brian Roberts was convicted by guilty plea to multiple serious felonies and moved to withdraw his plea before sentencing, alleging coercion by his court-appointed counsel. The court reversed the denial of both counsel's motion to withdraw and the defendant's motion to withdraw hi
• United States v. Lindell
  881 F.2d 1313· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the joinder of defendants, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing, or miscellaneous claims.
• United States v. Miller
  874 F.2d 1255· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-25 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the admission of detailed polygraph examination testimony was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Ustrak v. Fairman
  851 F.2d 983· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 56×
  The court held that attorney's fees awarded in civil rights cases can exceed damages, and that the appellate court can directly adjust fee awards to avoid further litigation.
• Zaida Lydia De Choudens v. The Gov't Dev. Bank OF Puerto RICO
  801 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 56×
• Chalmers v. City OF LOS Angeles
  796 F.2d 1205· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 56×
  The court vacated the district court's attorney's fee award due to lack of specificity and granted in part the motion for attorney's fees on appeal, reducing the requested amount.
• Wallraff v. T.G.I. Friday's, Inc.
  490 So. 2d 50· Fla.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 56×
  The court reviewed a conflict between lower courts regarding the interpretation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(d) concerning the sanction of dismissal with prejudice for a plaintiff's failure to attend a deposition.
• Lorain Tolliver v. Northrop Corp.
  786 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-14 ·cited 56×
  A district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to vacate a dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders, especially when the default remained uncured.
• United States v. Rovetuso
  768 F.2d 809· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-16 ·cited 56×·via Abuse Of Discretion (Appellate Review)
  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.
• Spesco, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  719 F.2d 233· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony, denying a continuance, refusing a jury instruction, or in its rulings on damages.
• Grenada Steel Indus., Inc. v. Ala. Oxygen Co., Inc.
  695 F.2d 883· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 56×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 407 applies to strict liability cases and that evidence of post-accident design changes is inadmissible to prove defectiveness unless the feasibility of alternative designs is controverted.
• Lewis v. Curtis
  671 F.2d 779· 3d Cir.· 1982-03-03 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint and by dismissing the action, as the amended complaint sufficiently alleged futility of demand and the original complaint's verification based on a Wall Street Journal article was
• Watson v. Peskoe
  407 So. 2d 954· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-12-08 ·cited 56×
  Plaintiffs Larry and Bunice Watson appealed from a judgment dismissing their specific performance complaint after the trial court struck their pleadings for willful failure to comply with discovery orders requiring production of documents. The court upheld the dismissal, finding
• Cnty. Nat'l Bank OF N. Miami Beach v. Sheridan, Inc.
  403 So. 2d 502· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-08-26 ·cited 56×·via Gross Abuse Of Discretion
  County National Bank appeals the denial of its motion to vacate a default judgment entered in a garnishment proceeding. The court holds that the bank demonstrated excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence, and therefore the default should be set aside under Flor
• United States v. Moreno
  649 F.2d 309· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony regarding the past marijuana dealings of the appellant's brothers.
• United States v. Gilliss
  645 F.2d 1269· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 56×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Expert Testimony
  The court held that the district court did not err in its application of the Speedy Trial Act, its rulings on the insanity defense and expert witness qualifications, or its jury instructions. However, the court vacated the sentence imposed on count I due to a potential due proces
• Pagan v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  534 F.2d 990· 1st Cir.· 1976-05-05 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's Rule 60(b) motion because the appellant and his counsel were aware of the settlement terms and deadlines but failed to act, leading to the loss of rights.
• Minn. Bearing Co. v. White Motor Corp.
  470 F.2d 1323· 8th Cir.· 1973-01-09 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, but erred in dismissing the parent corporation as a defendant, treating it as a summary judgment without sufficient clarity.
• Harris v. Walgreen's Distrib. Ctr.
  456 F.2d 588· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-10 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while the denial of appointed counsel was not an abuse of discretion, the dismissal of the amended petition based on the 30-day filing limit was erroneous because the motion for counsel tolled the statute.
• Hand v. United States
  441 F.2d 529· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-09 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial under Rule 60(b)(6) due to jury confusion and potentially improper evidence use.
• Richman v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  437 F.2d 196· 1st Cir.· 1971-02-03 ·cited 56×
  The court held that dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion, as lesser sanctions were available and appropriate.
• Jiffy Lubricator Co., Inc. v. Stewart-Warner Corp.
  177 F.2d 360· 4th Cir.· 1949-10-10 ·cited 56×
  An order transferring a civil action to another district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) is not a final order and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291.
• Askari Abdullah Muhammad v. State
  132 So. 3d 176· Fla.· 2013-12-19 ·cited 55×
  Muhammad, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his successive postconviction motion challenging Florida's lethal injection protocol using midazolam hydrochloride and raising clemency, statutory, and mental health-based claims. The court affirmed the denial of all postconvic
• Bozeman v. State
  714 So. 2d 570· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-07-01 ·cited 55×
  Bozeman was convicted of felony driving with a suspended license after police stopped him while he was driving his ex-wife's car. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense o
• Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp.
  843 F.2d 636· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-30 ·cited 55×
  The bankruptcy judge did not abuse discretion in estimating asbestos claims at $1.00 for voting purposes, as this procedure complied with the Code and facilitated reorganization.
• Cooling Sys. & Flexibles, Inc. v. Stuart Radiator, Inc.
  777 F.2d 485· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-27 ·cited 55×
  The court held that a typographical error in a copyright registration certificate was harmless, the Manufacturing Clause was not applicable, and the omission of copyright notice dedicated the catalog's arrangement to the public domain, thus affirming the dismissal of the infringe
• Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
  776 F.2d 1492· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating the cases for trial and in admitting evidence regarding appellants' knowledge of asbestos risks, but ordered remittiturs for future medical expenses awarded by the jury.
• Knorr Brake Corp. v. Harbil, Inc.
  738 F.2d 223· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 55×
  The court concurs with the majority opinion, acknowledging potential errors but upholding the policy of hesitating to assess attorney fees against attorneys.
• United States v. Contento-Pachon
  723 F.2d 691· 9th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed the trial court's exclusion of the duress defense, finding the defendant failed to establish the necessary elements of immediacy and inescapability.
• The Officers FOR Just. v. The Civil Serv. Comm'n OF the City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco
  688 F.2d 615· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-21 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed the district court's approval of a consent decree in a class action employment discrimination suit, finding it to be a fair, adequate, and reasonable resolution.
• Predrag Stevic v. Sava
  678 F.2d 401· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-05 ·cited 55×
  The court denied the INS's petition for rehearing, adhering to its prior decision.
• Chism v. Nat'l Heritage Life Ins. Co.
  637 F.2d 1328· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice due to the plaintiff's persistent failure to comply with discovery rules and court orders, and that the Doe defendants did not destroy diversity jurisdiction as no claims wer
• Manning v. State
  378 So. 2d 274· Fla.· 1979-11-21 ·cited 55×
  Derrick Manning was convicted of murdering two Columbia County sheriff's deputies and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Manning's motion for change of venue due to pervasive pretrial publicity and
• United States v. Adams
  581 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-14 ·cited 55×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and charges was proper under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) due to the conspiracy charge, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance under Rule 14. The court also affirmed the admissibility of hypnotically refreshe
• United States v. Alf Hill, Jr.
  526 F.2d 1019· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 55×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for continuance and independent psychiatric examination, nor did it err in denying the request for hybrid representation or in its handling of the voir dire and impeachment evidence.
• Ryan v. United States
  191 F.2d 779· D.C. Cir.· 1951-07-26 ·cited 55×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a new trial despite private conversations between the prosecuting attorney and jurors, as the presumption of prejudice was rebutted by evidence of harmlessness and the judge's careful inquiry.
• Jackson v. State
  107 So. 3d 328· Fla.· 2012-11-15 ·cited 54×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed Michael Jackson's conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence because the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a 37-minute videotaped custodial interrogation in which investigating officers repeatedly expressed their personal