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

• Reg'l Refuse Sys., Inc. v. Inland Reclamation Co.
  842 F.2d 150· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-16 ·cited 8×
• United Ass'n OF Journeymen & Apprentices OF the Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. v. Dep't OF the Army
  841 F.2d 1459· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Army's legal basis for withholding information, including names, addresses, social security numbers, and tax information, was not unreasonable, despite the majority's focus on the quality of advocacy.
• McDONALD v. State
  520 So. 2d 668· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in scoring the victim's injury as severe for guidelines scoresheet calculation.
• Greenwood Explorations, Ltd. v. Merit GAS & OIL Corp., Inc.
  837 F.2d 423· 10th Cir.· 1988-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of motions to vacate judgment or for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion due to the defendants' gross carelessness and lack of excusable neglect.
• Fontenot v. La. Bd. OF Elementary & Secondary Educ.
  835 F.2d 117· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-07 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Fee Awards
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar attorney's fees awards against the state when Congress authorizes them under its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees.
• United States v. Spencer
  836 F.2d 236· 6th Cir.· 1987-12-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish a "fair and just" reason to withdraw his guilty plea, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
• Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. (Nfta)
  836 F.2d 731· 2d Cir.· 1987-12-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court was justified in dismissing the action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C) due to the plaintiff's willful refusal to comply with discovery orders.
• Michelle Colleen by her guardian Ad Litem Ronald Dearing v. United States
  843 F.2d 329· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the FTCA claim was timely filed, but the magistrate's zero percent discount rate for damages was an abuse of discretion requiring remand. The award to the parents was affirmed.
• Republic Res. Corp. v. ISI Petroleum W. Caddo Drilling Program 1981
  836 F.2d 462· 10th Cir.· 1987-12-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a party breaching a settlement agreement cannot escape judgment by complying after the judgment is entered, but remanded for findings on contract ambiguity regarding setoffs and the value of an attempted assignment.
• Pollack v. Pollack
  517 So. 2d 707· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a final judgment of dissolution regarding alimony and child support but remanded the case for recalculation of attorney's fees due to the trial court's failure to follow proper methodology. The court upheld the award of lump sum alimo
• Smith v. United States
  834 F.2d 166· 10th Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the taxpayer's motions to reopen discovery and in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
• Blanchard v. Bergeron
  831 F.2d 563· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 8×
  A contingency fee agreement between a plaintiff and their attorney caps the attorney fee award under the Civil Rights Act, even if the lodestar calculation would result in a higher amount.
• In re Burlington N., Inc.
  832 F.2d 430· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the principles for awarding attorneys' fees under Hensley v. Eckerhart apply to fees sought for litigating prior fee awards. The district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the fee award based on limited success.
• Fischer & Porter Co., Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n
  831 F.2d 1574· Fed. Cir.· 1987-10-28 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the International Trade Commission's determination that the importation of certain flowmeters did not violate section 337 because the appellant failed to establish substantial injury to the domestic industry, vacating the patent infringement issues as moot.
• F. Food Co., Inc. v. Hart Props., Inc.
  515 So. 2d 279· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-10-20 ·cited 8×
  F. Food Company and related parties appealed a trial court's dismissal of their action against Hart Properties for failure to comply with pretrial orders. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the severe
• John v. State OF La.
  828 F.2d 1129· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while a district court has discretion to impose sanctions, including dismissal, for attorney misconduct, dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction that requires a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, and lesser sanctions must b
• United States v. King
  827 F.2d 864· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of a predicate act under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and that the appeal was properly before the court.
• Brock v. BIG Bear Mkt. NO. 3
  825 F.2d 1381· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a district court's denial of a prospective injunction under the FLSA, based solely on current compliance, was an abuse of discretion when violations were found to be willful and in bad faith.
• Hunt v. Marchetti
  824 F.2d 916· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing withdrawal of a stipulation for a retrial, in its jury instructions regarding imputation of an author's wrongdoing, or in excluding certain deposition testimony, as no substantial rights were affected.
• United States v. Santiago
  826 F.2d 499· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 8×
  A surety's appeal from a bail bond forfeiture is civil in nature, thus governed by the 60-day appeal period. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the forfeiture because the defendant willfully breached the conditions of his release by
• Meyer Goldberg, Inc. v. Fisher Foods, Inc.
  823 F.2d 159· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying May's motion to intervene and unseal tapes without considering the public interest in open records and the lack of opposition from original parties.
• The City OF Bloomington v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  824 F.2d 531· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely, considering the delay, prejudice to the original parties, minimal prejudice to the intervenor, and lack of unusual circumstances.
• N.M. Ex rel. Energy & Minerals Dep't v. U.S. Dep't OF the Interior
  820 F.2d 441· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 8×
  A non-consenting intervenor is not prejudiced by a settlement agreement between other parties and cannot prevent dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) when the intervenor's claims survive in a counterclaim. Although 30 U.S.C. § 1270(c) imposes a
• Truck Treads, Inc. v. Armstrong Rubber Co.
  818 F.2d 427· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action as a sanction for contumacious failure to comply with discovery orders.
• Nannette B. Davis v. USX Corp.
  819 F.2d 1270· 4th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice based on conditions that unfairly prejudiced the plaintiff's right to pursue state law claims in state court.
• Pollard v. Comm'r, Internal Revenue Serv.
  816 F.2d 603· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the taxpayer's arguments regarding the Sixteenth Amendment's ratification were frivolous and that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing damages.
• United States v. Frasch
  818 F.2d 631· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to redact racially derogatory language from tape recordings, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the Hobbs Act conviction and the admission of co-conspirator statements.
• Gumbol v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  815 F.2d 406· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-02 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' order of deportation, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a clear probability of persecution for withholding of deportation and insufficient evidence for a well-founded fear of persecution for asylum.
• Primitivo Ruiz Varela v. Velez
  814 F.2d 821· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing claims without proper notice or a hearing on good cause, and by dismissing for lack of prosecution despite substantial proceedings.
• Torres-Hernandez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  812 F.2d 1262· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen deportation proceedings because the evidence of entry date was not newly discovered and the time accrued during a frivolous appeal cannot count towards the seven-year domicile requirement for discretionary relie
• Langham-Hill Petroleum Inc. v. S. Fuels Co.
  813 F.2d 1327· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a dramatic drop in world oil prices due to foreign government action does not constitute a force majeure event excusing performance under a fixed-price contract, and that a district court retains jurisdiction to award attorney's fees under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 afte
• Rogers v. Dep't of Def. Dependents Schs.
  814 F.2d 1549· Fed. Cir.· 1987-03-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the arbitrator's award sustaining the employee's removal was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, despite an initial error in refusing to review performance standards.
• Dudley v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  816 F.2d 792· 1st Cir.· 1987-02-25 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Agency Discretion
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the Secretary's finding that the claimant was not disabled and that the denial of reopening a prior claim was not subject to judicial review.
• Univ. OF Cincinnati v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  809 F.2d 307· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 8×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
• In re Lawler v. Teofan
  807 F.2d 1207· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by applying the contingency factor to the entire period of representation, when a substantial portion of the work was non-contingent, and reduced the fee award accordingly.
• Andreas Proimos v. Fair Auto. Repair, Inc.
  808 F.2d 1273· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the issue of injunctive relief without proper notice or consent for consolidation of the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits, and that the denial
• Maude Lanham v. Whitfield
  805 F.2d 970· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for a new trial, excluding evidence, limiting cross-examination, directing a verdict, or denying in forma pauperis status.
• Commonwealth OF Pa. & Raymond Williams v. Local Union 542
  807 F.2d 330· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 8×
  A race-conscious remedy must be narrowly tailored to the violations it seeks to correct and must respect the legitimate interests of all affected individuals.
• Frank Arnold Contractors, Inc. v. Vilsmeier Auction Co., Inc.
  806 F.2d 462· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-02 ·cited 8×
  A seller's warranty of title under UCC § 2-312 is breached by a cloud on the title, even if the title is not ultimately found to be inferior.
• Ashland OIL, Inc. v. DELTA OIL Prods. Corp.
  806 F.2d 1031· Fed. Cir.· 1986-12-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ashland's motion for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) or 60(b)(6).
• Turner v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
  806 F.2d 241· Fed. Cir.· 1986-11-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) did not err in dismissing the petitioners' appeals as untimely filed, as they failed to justify the significant delay in filing after receiving clear notice of their appeal rights and deadlines.
• Babb v. Minder
  806 F.2d 749· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-21 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and the denial of the defendants' post-trial motions, finding that actionable defamation occurred and that the damages awarded were proper.
• Ward v. United States Parole Comm'n
  804 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(a) requires only a deferential review of the Attorney General's determination of need for a prisoner transfer pending habeas corpus appeal, limited to ensuring the court's ability to adjudicate the case effectively.
• Pub. Loan Co., Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  803 F.2d 82· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-07 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Discovery Rulings
  The court held that the Federal Deposit Insurance Act's § 1823(e) bars oral accord and satisfaction defenses against the FDIC, and that the appellants failed to raise a material fact issue regarding consideration for the promissory notes.
• Rowe v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
  802 F.2d 434· Fed. Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 8×
  An employee is bound by the actions and omissions of their chosen representative, and reliance on an attorney's erroneous advice regarding filing deadlines does not constitute good cause to waive an untimely appeal.
• Stanislav Kopunec v. Nelson
  801 F.2d 1226· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Mr. Kopunec was a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and affirmed the district court's award of fees and costs, finding no abuse of discretion in the amount awarded.
• Jasper Neely v. City OF Grenada
  799 F.2d 203· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold the defendants in contempt, denying modification of the affirmative action plan's grievance procedures, or in terminating its jurisdiction over the class action.
• Oystershell Alliance v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & United States
  800 F.2d 1201· D.C. Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the NRC's decision to authorize full-power operation of a nuclear facility notwithstanding pending motions to reopen the administrative record was consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements, and that the denial of the motions to reopen was not an ab
• Pearlie Mai Haynie and her counsel v. Ross Gear Div. OF TRW, Inc.
  799 F.2d 237· 6th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the award of attorney fees and costs against the plaintiff for the employer's defense was an abuse of discretion, but affirmed the award against the plaintiff for the union's fees and against the plaintiff's attorney for the union's fees, remanding for reconsi
• Wyckoff Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  796 F.2d 1197· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 8×
  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) retained authority to issue orders under section 3013 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) even in states with authorized hazardous waste programs, as Congress did not clearly intend to revoke this power. Therefore, the di