Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review)

12,337 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,658 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Gates v. Shell Offshore, Inc.
  881 F.2d 215· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that prejudgment interest should be awarded on future damages under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, applying Louisiana law. The court affirmed the denial of motions for directed verdict, JNOV, and new trial, and the jury's damage award.
• Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Amgen, Inc.
  882 F.2d 806· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 8×
  A district court has the authority to grant preliminary injunctive relief in an arbitrable dispute, provided the traditional prerequisites for such relief are met, and the Federal Arbitration Act does not implicitly prohibit such relief.
• Teamsters Local NO. 579 v. B & M Transit, Inc.
  882 F.2d 274· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the company was barred by the three-month statute of limitations from raising affirmative defenses to the confirmation of an arbitration award, that the award was not ambiguous, and that Rule 11 sanctions were warranted.
• Alexander v. Robertson
  882 F.2d 421· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that vacating a judgment is an inappropriate sanction for an attorney's unlicensed practice of law when the misconduct did not affect the judgment's merits or the judicial process's integrity, and other remedies are available.
• Shoals Am. Indus., Inc. v. The United States
  877 F.2d 883· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-17 ·cited 8×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to accord sufficient deference to the GAO's reasonable interpretation of procurement statutes and regulations when reviewing the agency's decision.
• Smogor v. Russell A. Enke, M.D.
  874 F.2d 295· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the exclusion of expert testimony on ultimate issues was not manifest error, and the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence, thus affirming the denial of a new trial.
• Est. OF Arthur S. Kraus v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  875 F.2d 597· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-22 ·cited 8×
  The Tax Court's denial of the Estate's motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence was an abuse of discretion, requiring reversal and remand.
• Barnett v. SEA Land Serv., Inc.
  875 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a settlement agreement reached during mediation is not binding unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties, and that the district court did not err in its findings regarding comparative negligence or the award of prejudgment interest.
• Donnie D. Marshall and Christie A. Marshall v. EL Paso Natural GAS Co. & Meridian Oil Prod., Inc.
  874 F.2d 1373· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to refer the case to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, in excluding certain evidence, or in its jury instructions regarding punitive damages.
• Gardner v. Gardner
  545 So. 2d 339· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-05-17 ·cited 8×
  In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the mother challenges the trial court's award of primary residential custody of the parties' son to the father and certain support and debt allocation provisions. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's custody decisio
• United States v. Crumbley
  872 F.2d 975· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the factual basis for a criminal forfeiture, as part of a guilty plea, can be established by the entire record, not just the Rule 11 proceeding, and that denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea was not an abuse of discretion given the substantial benefits r
• Portofino Rest., Inc. v. Utah State Ret. Fund
  543 So. 2d 328· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-05-09 ·cited 8×
• United States v. ONE 1984 Ford VAN
  873 F.2d 1281· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government's position in the forfeiture proceeding was not substantially justified, thus entitling the claimant to attorney fees under the EAJA.
• Clarissa Marsh v. Richardson
  873 F.2d 129· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting an extension to file a late notice of appeal based on 'good cause' when the circumstances only warranted an 'excusable neglect' standard, which was not met.
• Doelle v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel.
  872 F.2d 942· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal rules govern counterclaims in federal diversity cases, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the condemnation counterclaim. However, the court reversed the award of equitable damages for shrubbery due to lack of legal bas
• Reed v. Reed
  541 So. 2d 755· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-04-11 ·cited 8×
  The trial court abused its discretion by awarding insufficient child support.
• Quince Orchard Valley Citizens Ass'n, Inc. v. Hodel
  872 F.2d 75· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the plaintiffs' delay in bringing the action when balancing the harms.
• Bradley v. The United States
  870 F.2d 1578· Fed. Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government's unexplained delay in completing a wage study may constitute an abuse of discretion, precluding summary judgment, and that the matter should be remanded for prompt resolution.
• McMAHON v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co.
  870 F.2d 1073· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for summary judgment and directed verdict, admitting statistical expert testimony, reducing awards by retirement benefits, or denying prejudgment interest.
• Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Sheronda A. Meeks
  543 So. 2d 770· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-03-10 ·cited 8×
  This appeal addresses whether paramedics and their employer hospital are liable for failing to transport a five-year-old girl with undiagnosed congestive heart failure to a hospital, resulting in her death. The court affirmed a jury verdict of approximately $248,000, rejecting th
• Jankovich v. Bowen
  868 F.2d 867· 6th Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Secretary's position had a reasonable basis in fact and law, making it substantially justified for EAJA purposes, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the § 406(b)(1) fee motion due to a pending appeal.
• Ipina v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  868 F.2d 511· 1st Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision, holding that the appellant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for asylum and a clear probability of persecution for withholding of deportation.
• Lockert v. United States Dep't OF Labor
  867 F.2d 513· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the Secretary of Labor's decision, holding that the employee's termination was not in violation of the Energy Reorganization Act's whistleblower protections.
• Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery Prods.
  866 F.2d 1386· Fed. Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery motions and did not err in granting summary judgment for the applicant.
• United States v. Snoddy
  862 F.2d 1154· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that newly discovered evidence of alleged agent corruption and informant testimony did not meet the standard for granting a new trial, as it would not likely produce a different verdict.
• Hardee Mfg. Co. & Harsco Corp. v. Josey
  535 So. 2d 655· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages.
• Scott v. EL Farra Enters., Inc.
  863 F.2d 670· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the Board's petition for interim injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the NLRA, as reasonable cause existed to believe unfair labor practices occurred and the relief sought was just and proper.
• United States v. McBRIDE
  862 F.2d 1316· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial because cumulative trial errors, including prosecutorial misconduct, prejudiced the defendant and affected the fairness of the trial.
• In re Rare Coin Galleries OF Am., Inc. v. Vinick & Young
  862 F.2d 896· 1st Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the trustee had standing, the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction because the balance of harm did not favor the trustee and the remedy of a bill to reach and apply was unavailable at that stage.
• Davis v. Hon. Thomas C. Crush
  862 F.2d 84· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in imposing Rule 11 sanctions because the plaintiffs' civil rights complaint did not necessarily reflect a lack of reasonable inquiry into the facts or law.
• Norton Tire Co., Inc. v. Tire Kingdom Co., Inc.
  858 F.2d 1533· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Tire Kingdom's advertisements were not false under the Lanham Act, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 11 sanctions.
• Lively v. Bowen
  858 F.2d 177· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying attorneys' fees under the EAJA because the Secretary was not substantially justified in opposing the claimant's disability benefits claim, given prior inconsistent administrative findings.
• Corpus Christi Taxpayer's Ass'n v. City OF Corpus Christi
  858 F.2d 973· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction and res judicata, and that the City is entitled to sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
• Ikerd v. Lacy
  852 F.2d 1256· 10th Cir.· 1988-07-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without prejudice and imposing sanctions, including attorney's fees, for the appellant's attorney's failure to attend a scheduling conference.
• Burkhart v. The Kinsley Bank
  852 F.2d 512· 10th Cir.· 1988-07-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Bank's motion for sanctions under Rule 11, as the plaintiffs' legal position was initially supported by bankruptcy court rulings.
• Guzowski v. Hartman
  849 F.2d 252· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 8×
  The court should affirm the district court's dismissal of the second action, as the prior dismissal with prejudice bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been brought.
• United States v. Kelley
  849 F.2d 999· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence supported a finding of a single conspiracy and that the admission of evidence concerning other deals was not an abuse of discretion.
• Dillon v. City OF Chicago
  866 F.2d 902· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to waive the bond requirement for a stay of execution of the judgment and award of fees and costs pending appeal.
• United States v. McCOY
  848 F.2d 743· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 8×
  The admission of lineup photographs showing the defendant in prison garb was erroneous under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, but the error was harmless where substantial evidence of guilt existed, including positive identification by bank tellers and surveillance camera footage.
• Mangan v. Caspar Weinberger
  848 F.2d 909· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended complaints with prejudice for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.
• Cost Control Mktg. & Mgmt., Inc. v. Pierce
  848 F.2d 47· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a party cannot use the Declaratory Judgment Act to circumvent a specific statutory administrative review process provided by Congress.
• Frank's GMC Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  847 F.2d 100· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improvidently granted because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury and the district court failed to require a bond as mandated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c).
• Howard I.S. HO v. Martin Marietta Corp.
  845 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-20 ·cited 8×
  A federal court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement, entered as a consent decree, that resolves federal claims, even if the settlement also encompasses state law claims over which the court would not otherwise have jurisdiction.
• Kory Toma v. The City OF Weatherford
  846 F.2d 58· 10th Cir.· 1988-05-11 ·cited 8×
  The Tenth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff's case as a discovery sanction, as the plaintiff's conduct did not demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, or fault.
• Ahern v. Central Pacific Freight Lines
  846 F.2d 47· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's conduct implied assent to the settlement agreement, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the judgment or in imposing sanctions.
• United States v. LEE
  846 F.2d 531· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that any error in jury instructions regarding economic coercion was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings or refusing an entrapment instruction.
• Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc. v. Fodor Contracting Corp.
  843 F.2d 808· 4th Cir.· 1988-04-07 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the correct legal standard when denying a motion to vacate a default judgment, specifically by not distinguishing between the attorney's neglect and the party's own actions.
• Curtis T. Bedwell & Sons, Inc. v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co.
  843 F.2d 683· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint and entering default judgment due to egregious discovery abuses, and that the refusal to hold an adversary hearing on damages was proper given the preclusion order.
• United States v. Gutierrez-Chavez
  842 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a co-defendant's redacted confession was harmless error, and the recorded conversation was admissible to provide context for defendant's admissions.
• Taylor v. Soc. Sec. Admin.
  842 F.2d 232· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors required for a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.