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

• United States v. Coleman Herbert Dudley
  436 F.2d 1057· 6th Cir.· 1971-02-03 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion In Denying Continuance
  The court held that the defendant's conviction stands because the appeal board is presumed to have reviewed his classification de novo, and the denial of a continuance to subpoena appeal board members was not an abuse of discretion.
• Pvt. E2 Donald Jack Anderson v. Laird
  437 F.2d 912· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while precedent generally refuses intervention in punitive activations of civilian-soldiers for hair length, the majority's reasoning regarding First and Ninth Amendment rights is flawed.
• United States v. Balistrieri
  436 F.2d 1212· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial, and that the conviction was not tainted by unlawful electronic surveillance.
• Panagopoulos v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  434 F.2d 602· 1st Cir.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that petitions for review of deportation orders must be determined solely upon the administrative record and that new claims or evidence cannot be introduced on appeal.
• Bergliette B. Rine v. Rine
  240 So. 2d 655· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the wife's petition for attorney's fees, and that an order directing the wife to pay fees was legally ineffective.
• City OF Miami Beach v. Cummings
  239 So. 2d 501· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-09-08 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Attorney'S Fees
  The City of Miami Beach appealed judgments awarding attorney's fees to landowners after the city dismissed eminent domain proceedings against their property. The court held that attorney's fees may be awarded regardless of whether dismissal is initiated by the condemning authorit
• Martinez v. Patterson
  429 F.2d 844· 10th Cir.· 1970-07-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that constitutional due process does not require appointed counsel, confrontation of witnesses, or compulsory process at state parole revocation hearings, and that the equal protection clause does not mandate counsel for preparing written statements in such proceed
• United States v. McDANIEL
  425 F.2d 813· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
• United States v. Lauchli
  427 F.2d 258· 7th Cir.· 1970-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation, as the defendant's admitted conduct was inconsistent with probation's rehabilitative goals.
• Local 467, Upholsterers' Int'l Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  419 F.2d 179· 3d Cir.· 1969-12-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board abused its discretion by failing to articulate sufficient reasons and make adequate factual findings to support its determination that a single plant constituted an appropriate bargaining unit.
• Matilda Alouf v. Expansion Prods., Inc.
  417 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1969-11-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in awarding statutory damages and counsel fees for copyright infringement, despite the plaintiff's claims for higher actual damages and profits.
• Aronson v. Layha S. Aronson
  227 So. 2d 214· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-10-21 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court affirmed a divorce judgment, upholding the trial court's decision to grant child custody to the wife. The husband appealed, arguing the custody award was an abuse of discretion, but the appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's dec
• Muskardin v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  415 F.2d 865· 2d Cir.· 1969-09-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Special Inquiry Officer's denial of withholding deportation was not an abuse of discretion, as the scope of review is extremely narrow and limited to whether the decision was arbitrary or capricious.
• United States v. Bowen
  411 F.2d 923· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the reading of a deposition when the witness failed to appear after promising to do so and despite diligent efforts to serve a subpoena.
• Price v. Rome
  222 So. 2d 252· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-04-29 ·cited 8×
  James H. Price appeals from a trial court order declaring that A. J. Rome owned 40,000 shares of Airlift International, Inc. stock. Price argued Rome was his confidential agent and should account for profits from the stock's resale, but the appellate court affirmed the trial cour
• United States v. Birnbaum
  402 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1968-10-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the sentencing judge's remarks did not create a binding probationary status, and his subsequent denial of a sentence reduction did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
• Pearson v. State
  213 So. 2d 616· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-07-23 ·cited 8×
  Appellants Pearson and Thornell appealed their convictions for aggravated assault, arguing the trial court erred in denying their request to withdraw jury trial waivers shortly before trial. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court properly exercised its disc
• Ulpiano Varela Cartagena v. United States
  397 F.2d 278· 1st Cir.· 1968-06-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the trial, and other alleged errors did not rise to the level of plain error.
• Cross v. United States
  389 F.2d 957· D.C. Cir.· 1968-01-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not sua sponte interposing the insanity defense, even after remand for reconsideration in light of Whalem v. United States.
• Price v. Williams
  393 F.2d 348· D.C. Cir.· 1968-01-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the District Court did not err in continuing the guardian ad litem's services, denying the motion to remove conservators, or ordering the turnover of a testamentary document.
• Lilia B. Velasco v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  386 F.2d 283· 7th Cir.· 1967-11-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the determination by the Department of State that petitioners' residence in Canada did not comply with the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act was a matter of administrative discretion and not an abuse of discretion.
• Standard Newspapers, Inc. v. King
  375 F.2d 115· 2d Cir.· 1967-03-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to vacate the default judgment was not an abuse of discretion, as the appellant was aware of the proceedings and the motion was untimely.
• Halverson v. Campbell Soup Co.
  374 F.2d 810· 7th Cir.· 1967-01-05 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the exclusion of a key witness's testimony was an abuse of discretion, requiring a new trial for the plaintiff, and that the indemnity clause covered the indemnitee's negligence.
• Sherrill v. McSHAN
  356 F.2d 607· 9th Cir.· 1966-02-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the lands in question were located in California, not Arizona.
• RAY v. United States
  352 F.2d 521· 5th Cir.· 1965-11-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict.
• United States v. Carter
  347 F.2d 220· 2d Cir.· 1965-06-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in correcting a transcription error and denying a mistrial, as the correction was explained to the jury and additional summation time was granted.
• Mrs. Dorothy Whitehead v. Salyer
  346 F.2d 207· 10th Cir.· 1965-05-24 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a prima facie case for exemplary damages, and the exclusion of the expert witness did not constitute reversible error.
• VanBUSKIRK v. United States
  343 F.2d 158· 6th Cir.· 1965-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the issues raised in the motions to vacate sentence had already been decided on direct appeal and presented no new grounds for relief.
• Farr v. Farr
  164 So. 2d 890· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-06-09 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court affirmed a divorce decree, finding no abuse of discretion by the chancellor in setting alimony, child support, and attorney's fees, despite the husband's claims of financial inability to pay.
• Hammond v. The Times Publ'g Co.
  162 So. 2d 681· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-03-25 ·cited 8×
  In this libel action, the court affirmed the trial court's vacation of a default judgment against the newspaper defendants and its entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants. The court held that the complained-of article was not libelous per se because, under t
• Manhattan Shirt Co. v. Andrew D. M. Tomlinson in Bankr. of the Est. of N. Porter Mercantile Co.
  327 F.2d 449· 9th Cir.· 1964-01-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that even if the referee did not strictly follow bankruptcy rules in selecting a creditors' committee and trustee, reversal was not warranted due to the lack of demonstrated prejudice and the futility of relitigating the issue after the estate had been liquidated.
• Mrs. Eloise Carter v. Mrs. Lois Croswell
  323 F.2d 696· 5th Cir.· 1963-10-03 ·cited 8×
  A claim and counterclaim arising from the same facts and involving the same parties constitute a single claim for purposes of Rule 54(b), and therefore an appeal from judgment on the counterclaim alone is not properly before the court.
• The Butterick Co., Inc. v. Honorable Hubert L. Will
  316 F.2d 111· 7th Cir.· 1963-04-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to transfer venue was not an abuse of discretion, and therefore, a writ of mandamus compelling the transfer would not be granted.
• Mrs. Wanda Mercer v. Paris Theriot
  316 F.2d 635· 5th Cir.· 1963-03-14 ·cited 8×
  The district court properly construed the appellate mandate and did not abuse its discretion in finding that the additional evidence offered by the plaintiff lacked sufficient probative force to justify submission of the case to a jury, as the evidence consisted primarily of inad
• Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Hon. Casper Platt
  314 F.2d 369· 7th Cir.· 1963-02-27 ·cited 8×
  A district court may not deny a Rule 21(b) transfer motion based on speculation that it would be difficult to obtain a fair and impartial jury in the transferee district, as such a determination improperly requires the court to appraise the efficacy of another district's judicial
• Leong v. R.R. Transfer Serv., Inc.
  302 F.2d 555· 7th Cir.· 1962-05-03 ·cited 8×
  A trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to vacate a dismissal order for want of prosecution when the absence of counsel results from a shared, reasonable misunderstanding about local court practice, and the case should be reinstated to be tried on the merits.
• United States v. Guerini
  296 F.2d 33· 4th Cir.· 1961-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and that the plea of former jeopardy was without merit.
• Oswald v. Cruz
  289 F.2d 488· 9th Cir.· 1961-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in granting a new trial, despite the appellate court's inability to definitively determine if the decision was correct.
• MacLEOD v. D. C. Transit Sys., Inc.
  283 F.2d 194· D.C. Cir.· 1960-10-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the settlement and judgment.
• Gray v. Evening Star Newspaper Co.
  277 F.2d 91· D.C. Cir.· 1960-04-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the case to the Municipal Court, as the record did not show arbitrary action.
• Vecsey v. Vecsey
  115 So. 2d 719· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-11-16 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Attorney'S Fees
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree, finding no reversible error in the admission or exclusion of evidence, the award of attorney's fees, or the denial of the divorce.
• Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc.
  271 F.2d 257· 7th Cir.· 1959-10-20 ·cited 8×
  A district court abuses its discretion under Rule 54(b) in certifying a partial judgment as final when the case does not present exceptional hardship or unfairness, and when an interlocutory appeal would merely delay the principal litigation without simplifying or facilitating fu
• Behringer v. Lybrand & Morgan
  270 F.2d 670· 10th Cir.· 1959-09-22 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Fee Awards
  The court held that general creditors cannot appeal the allowance of another creditor's claim without following specific procedural requirements, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing attorney fees in bankruptcy.
• S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Palmer
  263 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1959-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by ample evidence and that the trial court's jury instructions, including those on permanent injuries and passing, were proper or harmless.
• Lowenthal v. Laurent
  102 So. 2d 410· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Stirling Music Co., Inc. v. Feilbach
  100 So. 2d 75· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-01-30 ·cited 8×
  This case involves an appeal from an order denying a temporary injunction. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the injunction.
• S. F. Bros. Co. v. Bankruptcy
  244 F.2d 73· 6th Cir.· 1957-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the compromise settlement.
• Renato Lavino v. Jamison
  230 F.2d 909· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-01 ·cited 8×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that could explain discrepancies in property seized by the Collector.
• Turner v. United States & Patsy Ruth Magee
  229 F.2d 944· 6th Cir.· 1956-02-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial because the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
• Maurer v. United States
  222 F.2d 414· D.C. Cir.· 1955-05-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for an election or separate trials for the counts.