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

• Dezell v. DAY Island Yacht Club
  796 F.2d 324· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 8×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal Equal Protection claim because the yacht club's possession of a Class H liquor license did not constitute state action, and the court abused its discretion in exercising pendent jurisdiction over the state law
• United States v. Garrett
  797 F.2d 656· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-24 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion In Limiting Cross-Examination
  The court held that an indictment returned by a grand jury that previously heard a defendant's immunized testimony on related matters requires an evidentiary hearing to determine if the indictment was based on evidence derived from legitimate independent sources, rather than the
• Mazzola v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  795 F.2d 222· 1st Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the revised medical evaluation criteria for mental disorders were not applicable to the claimant's case because the initial determination, reconsideration, and hearing all occurred prior to the Act's enactment date.
• Knowlton v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  791 F.2d 1506· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the General Motors stock received by the corporation was acquired after December 31, 1953, and that the taxpayers' attempt to raise a basis adjustment issue for stock sold in 1978 was a new issue improperly raised after the Tax Court's decision.
• Gant v. Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr.
  490 So. 2d 1020· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-06-20 ·cited 8×
  The Gants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action for lack of prosecution under Florida Rule 1.420(e). The court reversed, holding that a motion to dismiss filed one day before the one-year period expired constituted sufficient 'record activity' to toll the per
• Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court For the Dist. OF Wyo.
  790 F.2d 69· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 8×
  A trial court abuses its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) by refusing to hear a motion for change of venue without considering the statutory factors of convenience of parties, witnesses, and interests of justice.
• Stephens Indus., Inc. v. Bankruptcy
  789 F.2d 386· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in approving the sale of the debtor's assets, including FCC licenses, and in refusing to lift the automatic stay, as there was a sound business purpose for the sale and the debtor had equity in the licenses.
• Coston v. Detroit Edison Co.
  789 F.2d 377· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case due to the plaintiff's counsel's repeated failures to appear and prosecute the action.
• United States v. Curnew
  788 F.2d 1335· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-16 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  Section 1359 requires proof that an individual possesses at least 50 percent American Indian blood as a matter of fact, not merely some unquantifiable degree of Indian blood combined with cultural identity. A district court does not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testim
• Williams v. Atkins
  786 F.2d 457· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a consent decree enforcing a statute must be vacated when subsequent statutory amendments render the decree's provisions inconsistent with current federal law.
• United States v. McCARGO
  783 F.2d 507· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Sentencing
  The court held that the taxpayer's disobedience of the magistrate's order to seize property was sufficient to support a criminal contempt conviction, and the sentence imposed was within the court's authority.
• Carter v. United States
  780 F.2d 925· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal order, as dismissal was a sanction of last resort not justified by the circumstances.
• Martin v. Martin
  480 So. 2d 683· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-12-26 ·cited 8×
  In this child support modification case, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's increase of the appellant father's monthly child support obligation from $300 to $1,200, finding the evidence did not support such a substantial increase and that the tr
• United States v. Trott
  779 F.2d 912· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a guilty plea is valid if entered knowingly and voluntarily with an adequate factual basis, and withdrawal is within the trial court's discretion absent a compelling reason.
• In re Beverly Mfg. Corp. v. Tavormina
  778 F.2d 666· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that dismissal for failure to timely file briefs is not mandatory and requires a showing of bad faith, negligence, or indifference.
• United States v. Sambino
  799 F.2d 16· 2d Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to reduce his sentence.
• In re Boston & Me. Corp. v. Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green, P.A.
  778 F.2d 890· 1st Cir.· 1985-10-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by applying the lodestar method to a hybrid fee arrangement that was agreed upon by the parties and reasonable under the circumstances, and that the ICC's approval of the fee should have been given due weight.
• Spear v. Dayton's
  771 F.2d 1140· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the magistrate's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the appellant waived his right to a jury trial by failing to make a timely request.
• Hiegel v. Steve Hill & Marvin Owen
  771 F.2d 358· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 8×
  Expert witness fees and attorney travel and subsistence expenses exceeding the statutory allowances of 28 U.S.C. § 1821 may not be taxed as costs under Rule 54(d) without the district court carefully scrutinizing the bill of costs and finding the expert testimony crucial to the i
• Turner v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  771 F.2d 341· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a jury trial on the counterclaim for specific performance of a settlement agreement in a FELA case, but committed reversible error in instructing the jury that the defendant railroad had the burden of proving the atto
• Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Reinhold Flichtbeil
  475 So. 2d 1250· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-08-08 ·cited 8×
  Florida Power and Light Company appeals an award of attorney's fees and appraiser's fees in a condemnation action. The court affirmed the $40,250 attorney's fee award but reversed the $25,740 appraiser's fee award, finding the latter unsupported by the record.
• Bertil Sagermark v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  767 F.2d 645· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Sagermark failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a clear probability of persecution, and thus his claims for asylum and withholding of deportation were properly denied. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion
• Brown v. Brown
  472 So. 2d 873· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-07-17 ·cited 8×
  The husband appeals from an order modifying alimony and child support in a dissolution of marriage case. The trial court increased both obligations based on significant changes in the parties' circumstances since the original 1970 alimony and 1977 child support awards. The appell
• Johnson v. Est. OF Cleo J. Fraedrich
  472 So. 2d 1266· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-07-03 ·cited 8×
  Johnson appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for extension of time to file an independent action against Fraedrich's estate for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the personal representative's attorney properly file
• Ky. Utils. Co. v. The United States Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  766 F.2d 239· 6th Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 8×
  A utility is entitled to a cancellation notice period that approximates the lead time required to commit capital for new generating facilities to serve customers' projected growth, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must base any shorter notice period on substantial evi
• United States v. Johnson
  760 F.2d 1025· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
• Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Serv., Inc. v. U-Haul Co. OF E. Fla.
  468 So. 2d 492· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-05-09 ·cited 8×
  A party who fails to timely demand a jury trial waives that right, and a trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a belated request absent a showing that justice requires it and no injustice or inconvenience will result.
• Nat'l Bd. OF Young Men's Christian Ass'ns v. The Flint Young Men's Christian Ass'n OF Flint
  764 F.2d 199· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-19 ·cited 8×
  A preliminary injunction in a trademark case requires a showing of irreparable injury through a balance-of-hardships test, not merely proof of trademark registration and use by the defendant.
• Schauss v. Metals Depository Corp.
  757 F.2d 649· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) to a party that intentionally avoided proceedings.
• McKenzie Constr., Inc. v. Desmond L. Maynard
  758 F.2d 97· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the burden of proving the reasonableness of an attorney's fee rests on the attorney, even when the client initiates the action. It also held that the 'clearly excessive' standard is not appropriate for determining the reasonableness of fees under a contingent
• E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Melford Berns and Lenny Garcia
  757 F.2d 215· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the magistrate did not abuse discretion in denying the motion for relief from judgment because the alleged misrepresentations did not prevent the appellants from fully and fairly presenting their case.
• United States v. Kadota
  757 F.2d 198· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under Rule 35, as the defendant offered no new facts and the sentence was not illegal.
• In re Bishop v. Rewald
  779 F.2d 471· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Discovery Rulings
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment for petitioning creditors, finding the debtor was generally not paying its debts as they became due.
• Eichman v. Linden & Sons, Inc.
  752 F.2d 1246· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fees to the defendant, as the plaintiff's employment discrimination suit was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
• Bardomiano Aguilar & Rosa Aguilar v. LOS Angeles Cnty.
  751 F.2d 1089· 9th Cir.· 1985-01-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a minor child's potential collateral estoppel from a prior action, even if based on distinct causes of action, constitutes a sufficient 'interest' under Rule 19(a)(2) to require joinder if feasible, and dismissal under Rule 19(b) is appropriate if joinder woul
• King v. State
  461 So. 2d 1370· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-01-09 ·cited 8×
  A trial judge abuses his discretion and violates Rule 3.310 by implementing a procedure that restricts a defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges by backstriking jurors at any time before the jury is sworn.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Am. Commodity Grp. Corp.
  753 F.2d 862· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it would not review the merits of a default judgment when the defaulting party failed to raise issues or seek relief in the district court.
• McDONELL v. Hunter
  746 F.2d 785· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against certain searches and tests of correctional officers.
• ORR v. ORR
  458 So. 2d 362· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-10-24 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding insufficient alimony and assets to the wife in a long-term marriage, given the vast disparity in the parties' financial futures.
• King v. Alco Controls Div. OF Emerson Elec. Co.
  746 F.2d 1331· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the magistrate's findings or the district court's evidentiary rulings.
• ST. Elizabeth's Hosp. OF Boston v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  746 F.2d 918· 1st Cir.· 1984-10-18 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the Secretary's decision that the hospital's neurology/neurosurgery and interim coronary care units were not special care units, as the Secretary's interpretation of the regulation was supported by substantial evidence and entitled to deference.
• Zimmerman v. Quinn
  744 F.2d 81· 10th Cir.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 8×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying a consent judgment under Rule 60(b)(5) and (6) to reallocate tax liability due to a significant delay in transferring agreed-upon oil and gas interests.
• Beach v. Smith
  743 F.2d 1303· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his lawsuit was the catalyst for the government's actions, and thus he was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney fees under the EAJA.
• Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy Dist. v. Clark
  741 F.2d 257· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Interior is permitted to use all project water for conserving endangered species under the ESA, and is not obligated to sell water for municipal and industrial use. The court also affirmed the Secretary's rejection of the appellants' alter
• Islamic Republic OF Iran v. The Boeing Co. & Logistics Support Corp.
  739 F.2d 464· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the illness of sole counsel, which physically and mentally incapacitated him from filing a timely appeal, constituted an "excusable neglect" under Rule 4(a)(5) justifying an extension of time to appeal.
• Eastway Gen. Hosp., Ltd. v. Eastway Women's Clinic, Inc.
  737 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the severe sanctions imposed by the district court, including striking defenses and awarding attorney's fees, were justified by the defendant's repeated failure to comply with discovery orders.
• United States v. Cruz
  739 F.2d 395· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a sentence within statutory limits is not subject to review absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, and that coconspirator testimony, even if potentially influenced by leniency, can be sufficient for conviction.
• Martinez v. R.I. Hous. & Mortg. Fin. Corp.
  738 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1984-06-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against RIHMFC's income mix requirements, as they were at odds with the intent of the OBRA amendments.
• Corning Sav. & Loan Ass'n & The Corning Bank v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd.
  736 F.2d 479· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment because the administrative record provided a rational basis for the Board's decision and the appellants failed to show bad faith to supplement the record.
• Washington v. Walker
  734 F.2d 1237· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that dismissal for failure to prosecute was not an abuse of discretion, as the plaintiffs virtually abandoned the case for over five years.