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

• DE Nobel v. Vitro Corp.
  885 F.2d 1180· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the Vitro retirement plan grants administrators discretionary authority to interpret its terms, thus requiring review under the abuse of discretion standard, not de novo review. The administrators' interpretation was found reasonable, affirming the summary jud
• United States v. Bonnett
  877 F.2d 1450· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 52×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that passing a series of worthless checks can constitute a scheme to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(a)(1), and that the defendants' conduct in using these checks to artificially inflate account balances constituted a scheme to obtain property by false pretenses und
• United States v. Mateos-Sanchez
  864 F.2d 232· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding marijuana possession was not an abuse of discretion, and while admitting the marijuana itself was error, it was harmless. The evidence was sufficient for conviction, the search was proper, denial of travel expenses was not
• United States v. Carmelo Ayarza-Garcia
  819 F.2d 1043· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 52×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for judgment of acquittal, in determining that the sufficiency of evidence for subject matter jurisdiction was a jury question, in denying severance motions, or in denying post-trial motions without an evidenti
• United States v. Judd Carver Eisenberg
  807 F.2d 1446· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the initial stop of the vehicle was a valid investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and probable cause existed to arrest the defendant. The admission of a co-conspirator's statement, even if potentially erroneous, was harmless error.
• United States v. Jackson
  780 F.2d 1305· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-08 ·cited 52×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose the full extent of a key witness's employment relationship with a private company did not violate due process under Brady v. Maryland because the undisclosed information was not material, and the district court did not abus
• United States v. Givens
  767 F.2d 574· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the defendant's prior convictions were admissible for impeachment, the eyewitness identification was not tainted, the rebuttal evidence was properly admitted, the indictment was sufficient, and polygraph evidence was not required at sentencing.
• Sigmon Fuel Co. v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
  754 F.2d 162· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-04 ·cited 52×
  The court held that Sigmon Fuel was not entitled to prejudgment interest under the Contract Disputes Act because it did not elect to proceed under the Act, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the TVA's position substantially justified, thus denying
• Lopez v. Heckler
  725 F.2d 1489· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-22 ·cited 52×
• United States v. Jimenez-Diaz
  659 F.2d 562· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-19 ·cited 52×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in questioning a co-defendant about his guilty plea, denying a continuance, or admitting a post-arrest statement, and that the cumulative effect of alleged errors did not deny a fair trial.
• United States v. Wright
  625 F.2d 1017· 1st Cir.· 1980-03-27 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
• Kroungold v. Stanton L. Triester
  521 F.2d 763· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel, as the relevant disciplinary rules did not mandate disqualification under the circumstances.
• FOX v. Studebaker-Worthington, Inc.
  516 F.2d 989· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-30 ·cited 52×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Sanctions
  The court held that the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint was proper due to discovery violations, but the imposition of sanctions deeming allegations of the counterclaim as true was an abuse of discretion.
• Brennan v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Interstate Glass Co.
  487 F.2d 438· 8th Cir.· 1973-10-26 ·cited 52×
  The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has the authority to vacate proposed penalties, even if it affirms the underlying violations, as long as it considers the statutory criteria and does not abuse its discretion.
• Chuck "C.O." Beshear v. Weinzapfel
  474 F.2d 127· 7th Cir.· 1973-02-20 ·cited 52×
• United States v. Thomas
  453 F.2d 141· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-20 ·cited 52×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to convict Thomas of transporting marihuana and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lucas's motion for severance.
• Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  252 So. 2d 817· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-09-30 ·cited 52×
  The court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend a complaint shortly before trial when the amendment would introduce new issues and necessitate a continuance.
• Purer & Co. & Phillip Purer v. Aktiebolaget Addo & Addo Mach. Co., Inc.
  410 F.2d 871· 9th Cir.· 1969-03-14 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence, making findings of fact, or awarding attorneys' fees and costs, as the appellants failed to demonstrate prejudice or that the findings were clearly erroneous.
• Parman v. United States
  399 F.2d 559· D.C. Cir.· 1968-05-20 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in refusing to bifurcate the trial, that the defendant abandoned his apartment and thus lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure, that spontaneous statements made upon arrest were admissible, and that the evi
• United States v. Wiley
  267 F.2d 453· 7th Cir.· 1959-05-20 ·cited 52×
  The majority opinion erred in remanding the case for reconsideration of probation, as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying probation.
• Veldrin D. Freemon v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas
  46 So. 3d 1202· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-11-10 ·cited 51×
  Homeowner Veldrin Freemon, who failed to answer a foreclosure complaint and received a default judgment, sought relief from judgment claiming the affidavit of indebtedness lacked personal knowledge. The Fourth District affirmed the trial court's denial of relief, holding that Fre
• Peterson v. State
  2 So. 3d 146· Fla.· 2009-01-29 ·cited 51×
  Charles Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for fatally shooting John Cardoso during a robbery of a Big Lots store on December 24, 1997. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, rejecting Peterson's challenges regardin
• Jackson v. Ladon Echols
  937 So. 2d 1247· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-09-27 ·cited 51×
  The court affirmed the trial court's order granting a permanent injunction because the appellant failed to provide a sufficient statement of evidence for review of the abuse of discretion claim, and the petition otherwise sufficiently alleged a factual basis for the injunction.
• In re Petition of Jane DOE for a Judicial Waiver of Parental Notice of Termination of Pregnancy. Jane Doe
  932 So. 2d 278· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-11-10 ·cited 51×
  Jane Doe, a 17-year-old pregnant minor, sought judicial waiver of Florida's parental notification requirement for abortion under Fla. Stat. § 390.01114. The circuit court dismissed her petition, but the District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial court's order lacked suf
• Jones v. Moore
  794 So. 2d 579· Fla.· 2001-07-05 ·cited 51×
  Clarence Jones, a death row inmate, petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction and death sentence for the 1988 murder of Tallahassee police officer Ernest Ponce de Leon. The Court denied the petition, finding the claims either proc
• Adkins v. Adkins
  650 So. 2d 61· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-11-23 ·cited 51×
  In this marriage dissolution appeal, the wife challenged the trial court's exclusion of assets from the marital estate, valuations of certain assets, denial of alimony and attorney's fees, and exclusion of the marital home's enhanced value. The appellate court affirmed most of th
• Natale Lorenzo Montozzi v. State
  633 So. 2d 563· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-03-16 ·cited 51×
  A trial court commits reversible error by denying a for-cause challenge to a juror who has prior experience in the same line of business as the defendant and admits to reservations about the industry, even if she later gives qualified assurances of fairness; when a reasonable dou
• United States v. Luster
  896 F.2d 1122· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-22 ·cited 51×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidence Admission
  The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing of Mr. Luster due to an error in calculating the amount of crack cocaine mixture distributed, which affected his base offense level.
• Carter v. State
  576 So. 2d 1291· Fla.· 1989-10-19 ·cited 51×
  Antonio Carter was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in the shooting deaths of Roy Patel and Fred Haberle during a robbery at a grocery store in Daytona Beach, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Carter's convictions and death sentence for Patel's murder, rej
• United States v. Alirio Hastamorir
  881 F.2d 1551· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 51×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, finding sufficient evidence and proper procedures.
• United States v. Maria del Socorro Pardo Viuda De Aguilar
  883 F.2d 662· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 51×
  The court held that appellants could not present evidence of their mistaken interpretation of immigration laws as a defense to charges of smuggling, transporting, or harboring aliens, as ignorance or mistake of law is not a defense and such evidence would create undue trial burde
• United States v. Metro. Dist. Comm'n
  847 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1988-05-19 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the district court's method of calculating attorney fees, focusing on specific tasks and reasonable time rather than solely on claimed hours, was permissible and not an abuse of discretion, and that the appeal was timely filed.
• Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp.
  826 F.2d 794· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 51×
  The court held that removal jurisdiction was proper because the plaintiff's state law claims were completely preempted by ERISA, creating a federal question. The court also reversed summary judgment on claims for breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of the implied covena
• Vides-Vides v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  783 F.2d 1463· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-05 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a clear probability of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution, and that his due process rights were not violated.
• Ariko v. Ariko
  475 So. 2d 1352· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-10-03 ·cited 51×
  In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets and alimony award to the wife, but reversed the award of attorney's fees to the wife because both parties had substantially equal financi
• Loehr v. Ventura Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist.
  743 F.2d 1310· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-26 ·cited 51×
  A public employee's contract and state law provisions that merely outline procedural requirements for termination do not create a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment. Allegations of incompetence or involvement in a non-criminal investigation do no
• Woodfork v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union
  642 F.2d 966· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-17 ·cited 51×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The majority reversed the district court's denial of leave to amend and remanded for a redetermination of the cause of action's accrual date, while the dissent argued the district court acted correctly in both respects.
• Smith v. Widman Trucking & Excavating, Inc.
  627 F.2d 792· 7th Cir.· 1980-08-01 ·cited 51×
  The court should not have set aside the final judgment based on alleged attorney misunderstanding without a more thorough record and client input.
• United States v. Asbury
  586 F.2d 973· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 51×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the strip searches conducted by customs officials were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
• Dove v. Codesco
  569 F.2d 807· 4th Cir.· 1978-01-18 ·cited 51×
  The court held that dismissal of a case for an attorney's failure to attend a pretrial conference, without a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, is an abuse of discretion and that lesser sanctions should be imposed.
• United States v. Little
  567 F.2d 346· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-23 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, did not err in admitting a prior conviction for impeachment, and did not err in denying a mistrial after a witness invoked the Fifth Amendment.
• United States v. Riley
  544 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, nor in denying a motion for post-verdict juror interviews.
• Romasanta v. United Airlines, Inc.
  537 F.2d 915· 7th Cir.· 1976-07-01 ·cited 51×
  The denial of a motion to intervene as untimely was not an abuse of discretion, as the petitioner delayed unreasonably in seeking to join the litigation.
• Trailways OF NEW England, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  412 F.2d 926· 1st Cir.· 1969-06-13 ·cited 51×
  The court would affirm the Board's order dismissing the complaint without a hearing because the complainant failed to show substantial injury to travelers.
• Houston Tex. GAS & OIL Corp. v. Hoeffner
  132 So. 2d 38· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-06-30 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow the condemnor to amend its petition late in the proceedings or in refusing to admit evidence regarding the condemnor's non-binding policy on land use.
• Provus v. Provus
  44 So.2d 656· Fla.· 1950-02-21 ·cited 51×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed an appeal concerning the reasonableness of temporary alimony and attorney fees awarded in a divorce case. The court affirmed the attorney fee award but reversed the Special Master's fee, remanding for further proceedings.
• Genworth Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. TVPX ARS, Inc.
  959 F.3d 1318· 11th Cir.· 2020-05-26 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by enjoining TVPX's lawsuit based on res judicata without sufficient factual findings that Genworth's conduct had remained unchanged since the prior settlement.
• Winder v. Dian A. Winder
  152 So. 3d 836· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-12-12 ·cited 50×
  In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the husband challenges the trial court's inclusion of liquidated retirement account funds in equitable distribution, the award of permanent alimony, and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court reverses all three determinations, fi
• Loyal R. Cayea, Jr. v. Citimortgage, Inc.
  138 So. 3d 1214· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-05-28 ·cited 50×
  In this foreclosure appeal, the Cayeas challenged the trial court's admission of CitiMortgage's payment history records. The Fourth District affirmed, holding that the payment history printout properly qualified as a business record under Florida's evidence rules and was correctl
• SAS v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
  112 So. 3d 778· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-05-17 ·cited 50×
  The court held that oral testimony regarding the amount of debt, based solely on unadmitted business records, constitutes inadmissible hearsay and is legally insufficient to establish the debt amount in a foreclosure action.