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

• Davis v. State
  2 So. 3d 952· Fla.· 2008-12-18 ·cited 54×
  William Frank Davis was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for fatally stabbing his neighbors Alice Jean Albin and her 16-year-old daughter Loretta Ann Wren in August 2003. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Davis's convictions and death sentences, rejecting his argum
• United States v. Noti
  731 F.2d 610· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-17 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the Miranda warnings given to the defendant were defective because they failed to inform him of his right to have counsel present during questioning, and the admission of his post-arrest statements was not harmless error.
• United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc.
  711 F.2d 1164· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-28 ·cited 54×
  The court held that a presentence report may not be disclosed to third parties without a compelling demonstration that disclosure is required to meet the ends of justice, and that the district court erred in denying Peerless's motion for a preliminary injunction.
• United States v. Birney
  686 F.2d 102· 2d Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of embezzlement to prove motive for making false entries, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice from preindictment delay to warrant dismissal of the false entry coun
• Armstrong v. Bd. OF Sch. Directors OF the City OF Milwaukee
  616 F.2d 305· 7th Cir.· 1980-02-19 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court properly applied class action settlement principles to approve the desegregation settlement agreement, and that such settlements are permissible even after a finding of liability.
• United States v. LEA
  618 F.2d 426· 7th Cir.· 1980-02-19 ·cited 54×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidence Admission
  The court held that the mailings were sufficiently connected to the scheme to defraud Safeway, and the admission of prior bad acts evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• Huey v. Teledyne, Inc.
  608 F.2d 1234· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 54×
  The court held that while the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper, the refusal to certify the class action is not reviewable on appeal due to the policy against piecemeal appeals, but the case is remanded for technical correction of the dismissal order.
• Lindsey v. Dayton-Hudson Corp.
  592 F.2d 1118· 10th Cir.· 1979-02-05 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and slander were barred by the statute of limitations because the summons was not issued within the one-year period, and the malicious prosecution claim failed for lack of evidence that the de
• Rein J. Vander ZEE v. Kimon T. Karabatsos
  589 F.2d 723· D.C. Cir.· 1978-12-21 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find an oral contract existed, but remanded for consideration of a new trial on damages.
• Storer v. Storer
  353 So. 2d 152· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-11-29 ·cited 54×
  In this Florida family law case, the estate of a wealthy husband appeals a divorce judgment awarding the wife $2.261 million in lump-sum alimony (payable in installments), the marital home on Indian Creek Island with furnishings, and $200,000 in attorney's fees. The court affirms
• United States v. Pastor
  557 F.2d 930· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-19 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district judge erred in finding that the appellant voluntarily absented himself from trial, as his hospitalization for a severe anginal episode was medically justified and his constitutional right to be present was not knowingly waived.
• United States v. Wright
  542 F.2d 975· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-27 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination and admitting certain rebuttal testimony, and that procedural rules regarding jury instructions were not met for review.
• Shumate & Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Ass'n OF Sec. Dealers, Inc.
  509 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-05 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of injury to his business or property to create a jury question on his antitrust claims.
• Merola v. Atl. Richfield Co.
  493 F.2d 292· 3d Cir.· 1974-03-08 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court erred by not applying the Lindy Bros. standards for determining attorneys' fees and remanded for reconsideration.
• The Troxel Mfg. Co. v. Schwinn Bicycle Co.
  489 F.2d 968· 6th Cir.· 1973-12-19 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the denial of Troxel's motion to amend its pleadings was not an abuse of discretion, but reversed the denial of Schwinn's counterclaim for royalties due before the patent's invalidation.
• Charlton v. United States & John W. Macy, Jr.
  412 F.2d 390· 3d Cir.· 1969-06-02 ·cited 54×
  The concurring judge agrees that the case must be remanded due to the district court's narrow scope of review but disagrees with the majority's inclusion of the substantial evidence test for reviewing government employee discharges.
• Pruett v. Marshall
  283 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1960-09-30 ·cited 54×
• Smith v. United States
  223 F.2d 750· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-21 ·cited 54×
  A defendant is entitled to a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 if their motion alleges facts outside the record that, if true, would establish a due process violation.
• Natacha Peuguero and Angelo Peuguero v. Bank OF Am., N.A.
  169 So. 3d 1198· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-07-15 ·cited 53×
  Natacha and Angelo Peuguero appealed a foreclosure judgment entered against them by Bank of America. The appellate court affirmed the foreclosure but reversed and remanded the judgment amount, holding that while the bank proved standing to foreclose, it failed to provide sufficie
• Phadael v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas
  83 So. 3d 893· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-02-08 ·cited 53×
  A defaulted party cannot raise the issue of the plaintiff's lack of standing for the first time in a motion to vacate a judgment under rule 1.540(b)(4), as such a defect would at most render the judgment voidable, not void.
• TAI A. Pham v. State
  70 So. 3d 485· Fla.· 2011-06-16 ·cited 53×
  Tai Pham was convicted of first-degree murder for stabbing his estranged wife to death, along with attempted murder, armed kidnapping, and armed burglary. On direct appeal of his death sentence, the Florida Supreme Court rejected all seven of his constitutional and procedural cha
• Weaver v. State
  894 So. 2d 178· Fla.· 2004-12-16 ·cited 53×
  Jeffrey Lee Weaver was convicted of first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer and sentenced to death after the trial judge overrode the jury's eight-to-four recommendation of life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reversed the death senten
• Seven Hills, Inc. v. Bentley
  848 So. 2d 345· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-02-12 ·cited 53×
  This consolidated class action involved whether Florida Power Corporation exceeded its easement authority by installing fiber optic communications lines on 6,293 parcels across Florida. The trial court approved a class settlement, but the appellate court found the trial court had
• Durocher v. State
  596 So. 2d 997· Fla.· 1992-02-13 ·cited 53×
  Michael Durocher appealed his conviction and death sentence for first-degree murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and sentence, rejecting his arguments that his confession to a second murder violated his Sixth and Fifth Amendment rights and that prosecut
• Ivory Wright v. Sheppard
  919 F.2d 665· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 53×
  The court held that while punitive damages may be appropriate, appellate courts cannot mandate their award, as this is a discretionary decision for the fact finder. The majority's imposition of punitive damages constituted an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Sellers
  906 F.2d 597· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and that the defendants' convictions and sentences were proper.
• United States v. Donaciano Hernandez-Escarsega
  886 F.2d 1560· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-04 ·cited 53×
  The court affirmed convictions for continuing criminal enterprise and conspiracy to travel in aid of a racketeering enterprise, but remanded for vacation of other conspiracy convictions due to impermissible cumulative punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Beltran-Rios
  878 F.2d 1208· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-06 ·cited 53×
  The court held that admitting drug courier profile testimony to rebut the defense's suggestion of poverty was not an abuse of discretion, and the jury instruction on duress was not misleading.
• Solaroll Shade & Shutter Corp., Inc. v. Bio-Energy Sys., Inc.
  803 F.2d 1130· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 53×
  The court held that an attorney's negligent failure to respond to a motion does not constitute excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1), and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to vacate a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement.
• McCALL-BEY v. Franzen
  777 F.2d 1178· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-20 ·cited 53×
  Federal courts do not have inherent jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements of dismissed cases; an independent basis for federal jurisdiction is required.
• United States v. Gonzales
  749 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-21 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance, refusing to make a pretrial determination of Miranda waiver, limiting cross-examination, or denying motions to suppress evidence.
• Martin v. State
  455 So. 2d 370· Fla.· 1984-08-28 ·cited 53×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate a death sentence. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint an additional psychologist to examine the defendant, as this issue had already been decided on appeal and
• Gonzalez v. State
  449 So. 2d 882· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-04-10 ·cited 53×
  Juan Gonzalez was convicted of third-degree murder, attempted third-degree murder, robbery, and marijuana trafficking related to two homicides committed during a robbery of marijuana. On appeal, he challenged the admission of his confession and his conviction for both felony murd
• C.K.S. Eng'rs, Inc. v. White Mountain Gypsum Co.
  726 F.2d 1202· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vacate the default judgment, as the defendants' actions leading to the default were not excused.
• United States v. Ramsey
  726 F.2d 601· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-20 ·cited 53×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court's disposition is agreed with, but the judge dissents regarding the handling of recanted testimony.
• Lewis v. Brown & Root, Inc.
  711 F.2d 1287· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the award of attorney's fees against the plaintiff and his counsel was not authorized under the relevant statutes and principles.
• United States v. Bailey
  675 F.2d 1292· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 53×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that defendants waived misjoinder claims, severance was not required, jury instructions were proper, and the defendant's waiver of counsel for self-representation was knowing and intelligent.
• McGOWAN v. Faulkner Concrete Pipe Co.
  659 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 53×
  The court held that dismissal under Rule 41(b) was an abuse of discretion absent a clear record of intentional delay or contumacious conduct, and that denial of class certification was not an abuse of discretion given the plaintiffs' delay and financial concerns.
• United States v. Morris
  647 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 53×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the trial court did not err in consolidating indictments, instructing the jury on reasonable doubt, admitting evidence of cash found, charging the jury on possession of recently stolen property, or in its search warrant procedures.
• Mrs. Althea Anthony v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp.
  617 F.2d 1164· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-29 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the dismissal of the plaintiff's action with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion, but the award of attorney's fees was improper without further findings.
• Hodges v. United States
  597 F.2d 1014· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-02 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the IRS to introduce new defenses not included in the pretrial order, nor in refusing to modify the order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jacob E. Decker AND Sons
  569 F.2d 357· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-13 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the Board erred in refusing to consider felony convictions for witness credibility but did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening of the record. The court also denied enforcement of the reinstatement order for two employees, remanding for further determ
• Constructors Ass'n of W. Pa. v. Kreps
  573 F.2d 811· 3d Cir.· 1978-03-07 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the MBE set-aside provision of the Local Public Works Act, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits or sufficient irreparable
• Edynak v. Atl. Shipping Inc. CIE.
  562 F.2d 215· 3d Cir.· 1977-08-15 ·cited 53×·via Manifest Abuse Of Discretion
  The court held that federal maritime law applied to the longshoreman's injury occurring on navigable waters and that the jury could reasonably find the vessel unseaworthy based on the improper method of unloading, even if caused by a longshoreman's negligence.
• Schlagel v. Schlagel
  973 So. 2d 672· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-02-13 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in imputing income to the wife based on her law degree and available job market, but abused its discretion by denying any permanent, periodic alimony in a long-term marriage.
• Colucci v. EAR Rare Auto. Grp., Inc.
  918 So. 2d 431· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-01-25 ·cited 52×
  Richard Colucci appeals a preliminary injunction prohibiting him from competing nationwide for five years. The appellate court reversed, holding that Kar Kare Automotive Group failed to establish a legitimate business interest sufficient to support enforcement of the non-compete
• Hernandez-Alberto v. State
  889 So. 2d 721· Fla.· 2004-09-23 ·cited 52×
  Pedro Hernandez-Alberto was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for killing his 11-year-old stepdaughter Donna Berezovsky and his wife's adult daughter Isela Gonzalez on January 3, 1999. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both murder convictions and two death sentences
• United States v. Jewel
  947 F.2d 224· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-21 ·cited 52×
  The exclusionary rule should apply to sentencing, as allowing illegally seized evidence would significantly undermine the Fourth Amendment.
• Hernandez v. Page
  580 So. 2d 793· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-04-30 ·cited 52×
  Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j), "good cause" for failure to serve process within 120 days requires at least showing excusable neglect, which cannot be satisfied by simple inadvertence or mistake of counsel without more. An attorney's forgetting about a case until
• Manor Healthcare Corp. v. Lomelo
  929 F.2d 633· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 52×
  A municipality is not liable under § 1983 for a mayor's criminal acts unless those acts were officially sanctioned or made pursuant to a municipal policy by an official with final policy-making authority. A prevailing party may recover costs even if paid by a non-party insurer.