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

• Keith v. Volpe
  858 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the filing of a supplemental complaint.
• William H. "Butch" Gossett, Jr. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
  856 F.2d 1154· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based on the exclusion of a rebuttal witness and allegedly improper closing argument remarks.
• Cassidy v. Tenorio
  856 F.2d 1412· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the default judgment because the defendant failed to establish a meritorious defense or demonstrate fraud or undue influence.
• Lebovitz v. Miller
  856 F.2d 902· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the attorney's pre-filing inquiry was reasonable under the circumstances, and therefore sanctions were improperly imposed. The court also held that the attorney's defense against a motion to disqualify him was not sanctionable.
• AETNA Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Med. Servs., Inc.
  855 F.2d 1470· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 6×
  An order imposing sanctions solely on a non-party attorney is immediately appealable, and the court remanded the case for reconsideration of the sanctions, finding the district court's stated reasons for imposing them were erroneous.
• ROE v. Deere & Co., Inc.
  855 F.2d 151· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the theory of crashworthiness and by excluding expert testimony related to it. Crashworthiness is not a separate cause of action but a subset of strict liability.
• United States v. Mansion House Ctr. N. Redev. Co.
  855 F.2d 524· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying its prior judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to correct omissions that reflected the parties' and court's intent.
• Schaefer v. Transp. Media, Inc.
  859 F.2d 1251· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant was an 'employer' under the ADEA, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions.
• Fed. Election Comm'n v. TED Haley Cong. Comm.
  852 F.2d 1111· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that post-election loan guarantees made to retire campaign debts are considered contributions under FECA and are subject to contribution limits, and that the FEC's interpretation of this is entitled to deference.
• Holtan v. Holtan
  528 So. 2d 79· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-07-06 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to award permanent periodic alimony but reversed the provision requiring the husband to pay all future medical expenses, finding it too open-ended. The case clarifies the limits on a former spouse's responsibility for future
• United States v. James
  848 F.2d 160· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C.A. § 3653 authorizes a district court to revoke a sentence of probation for acts committed after conviction but prior to sentencing.
• Kossman v. Calumet Cnty.
  849 F.2d 1027· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that liquidated damages under the ADEA are calculated by doubling the compensatory damages amount determined *before* subtracting any amounts earned in mitigation. Attorney's fees and costs were vacated and remanded due to insufficient reasoning by the district cou
• United States v. Romano
  849 F.2d 812· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by denying her the opportunity to retain counsel of her choice after revoking her pro se status.
• The Republic OF the Philippines v. NEW York Land Co.
  852 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a special property advisor and issuing an injunction against expenditures without court approval, as these measures were necessary to preserve the properties pending determination of ownership.
• Parker v. JOE Lujan Enters., Inc.
  848 F.2d 118· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the winch operator was a borrowed servant of the employer, barring the employee's negligence claim against the winch provider, and that the denial of leave to amend the complaint was within the trial court's discretion.
• Atasi Corp. v. Seagate Tech.
  847 F.2d 826· Fed. Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the presumption of shared confidences applies to 'of counsel' attorneys, and the screening measures were insufficient to rebut this presumption, thus upholding the disqualification of the law firm.
• United States v. Heisinger
  846 F.2d 1168· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-25 ·cited 6×
  A district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to reduce a sentence based solely on a disparity with a coconspirator's lesser sentence, especially when imposed by different judges.
• Isabelle Dominguez v. S. Anthony Wolfe, M.D.
  524 So. 2d 1101· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-05-10 ·cited 6×
  Appellant Dominguez appealed dismissal of her medical malpractice complaint for failure to disclose expert witnesses and a ruling enforcing a settlement agreement against her. The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court.
• Culebras Enters. Corp. v. Rivera-Rios
  846 F.2d 94· 1st Cir.· 1988-05-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that attorneys who performed pretrial legal services while known to be potential witnesses did not violate the advocate-witness rule under the applicable Model Rules of Professional Conduct and are eligible for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• In re Lister v. United States
  846 F.2d 55· 10th Cir.· 1988-05-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a creditor's efforts, whether pre- or post-petition, must demonstrate an actual and demonstrable benefit to the bankruptcy estate to be compensable as administrative expenses.
• Haley v. Dormire
  845 F.2d 1488· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the complaints were legally frivolous and properly dismissed by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
• Katrelia Johnson v. Marriott Hotel & Crawford & Co.
  523 So. 2d 730· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-04-12 ·cited 6×
  Katrelia Johnson appealed a workers' compensation order denying her claim for attorney's fees based on alleged bad faith by the carrier in handling her workers' compensation claim. The court reversed, finding that the carrier's conduct in calculating the claimant's average weekly
• Colt Indus. Inc. v. Fidelco Pump & Compressor Corp. & Fidelco Equip. Corp.
  844 F.2d 117· 3d Cir.· 1988-04-08 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the distributorship agreement was a franchise under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act because it granted a license to use a trade name and involved a community of interest.
• Acumenics Research & Tech. v. United States Dep't OF Just.
  843 F.2d 800· 4th Cir.· 1988-04-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Acumenics failed to demonstrate that disclosure of unit pricing information would cause substantial competitive harm, and thus the district court did not err in upholding the DOJ's decision to release the information.
• Stitt Spark Plug Co. v. Champion Spark Plug Co.
  840 F.2d 1253· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-01 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that Stitt failed to present an economically plausible theory of predatory pricing or sufficient evidence of anticompetitive effect from exclusive dealing agreements, thus a reasonable jury could not find for Stitt.
• United States v. McCONNELL
  842 F.2d 105· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that setting a financial bail condition that a defendant cannot meet does not violate the Eighth Amendment or the Bail Reform Act if the amount is reasonably necessary to assure the defendant's appearance at trial.
• Dirven D. Reeves v. Bowen
  841 F.2d 383· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-28 ·cited 6×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fees under the EAJA because the Government's position was substantially justified.
• Storage Tech. Corp. v. The Tr. Co. OF NEW Jersey
  842 F.2d 54· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's interpretation of the lease's 'model upgrade' provision was not clearly erroneous and that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages.
• United States v. 31.63 Acres OF Land
  840 F.2d 760· 10th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) cannot be used to substitute for a timely appeal of an underlying judgment, especially when seeking to challenge the merits of a prior order denying attorney's fees.
• Jefferson v. Bowen
  837 F.2d 461· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the magistrate and district court did not err in denying fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 because the government's position was substantially justified.
• Southerland v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union
  845 F.2d 796· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in awarding attorney's fees without sufficient evidence of prevailing market rates and that the issue of substantial benefit must be redetermined.
• Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick
  834 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to set aside a default judgment without properly considering the required factors and by sanctioning the defendant for the actions of another party's counsel.
• United States v. Greene
  834 F.2d 86· 4th Cir.· 1987-11-23 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a new trial due to unadmitted exhibits reaching the jury, and that the cross-appeal on sufficiency of evidence was properly before the court and denied.
• Coakes v. Arabian Am. OIL Co.
  831 F.2d 572· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, as England was a more appropriate and convenient forum.
• Vulcan Pioneers, Inc. v. The NEW Jersey Dep't OF Civil Serv.
  832 F.2d 811· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's findings that the state's promotional test was not job-related were not clearly erroneous, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning interim relief by enjoining the use of the invalidated test's eligibility lis
• Callowhill v. The Allen-Sherman-Hoff Co., Inc.
  832 F.2d 269· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employer's failure to post required ADEA notices tolled the statute of limitations, and equitable considerations required that the plaintiffs' complaints be considered timely filed.
• KL Grp. v. Case
  829 F.2d 909· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the scope of legal representation, precluding summary judgment, but affirmed the protective order barring use of an inadvertently produced privileged letter.
• The Corp. OF Lloyd's v. Lloyd's U.S.
  831 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 6×
  The court vacated the order denying discovery and remanded for clarification because the district court's order lacked specificity regarding the legal basis for its decision. The court affirmed the denial of costs and fees, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Alston A. Emanuel and Leon Paige v. Marsh
  828 F.2d 438· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's finding of no discrimination was clearly erroneous.
• Nat'l Transp., Inc. v. INN Foods, Inc.
  827 F.2d 351· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that a clean bill of lading is insufficient to establish delivery in good condition for goods not visible or open to inspection, and that the exclusion of testimony lacking personal knowledge was not an abuse of discretion.
• Hung Hy Nguyen dba Mekong Mkt. v. United States
  824 F.2d 697· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Food Stamp Program instruction, even if unpublished, did not adversely affect the grocer's substantive rights under the Freedom of Information Act because it served as a guideline rather than a binding rule.
• United States v. Melguizo
  824 F.2d 370· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the indictment without prejudice, allowing for subsequent conviction.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Aaron's Off. Furniture Co., Inc.
  825 F.2d 1167· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in determining the bargaining unit and properly refused to consider the company's untimely objection to the election procedure.
• LaRO Corp. v. BIG D OIL Co.
  824 F.2d 689· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• Roysworth D. Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
  823 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in approving a class action settlement, even with opposition from a significant portion of responding class members, provided the settlement is fair and reasonable.
• Nikwei v. Ross Sch. OF Aviation, Inc.
  822 F.2d 939· 10th Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the default judgment, finding that service of process was properly effectuated despite technical non-compliance with state statutes, as the defendant had actual notice and attempte
• AMR Servs. Corp. (AMR) v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters ("IBT")
  821 F.2d 162· 2d Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Preliminary Injunctions
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the evidence supported the finding that the picketing was not a dispute over representation under the Railway Labor Act.
• VAN DER Salm Bulb Farms, Inc. v. Hapag Lloyd, AG
  818 F.2d 699· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that market value is adequate to establish actual damages under COGSA, and that the plastic trays containing flower bulbs constituted 'packages' for the purpose of COGSA's liability limitation.
• Ward Elecs. Serv., Inc. v. First Commercial Bank
  819 F.2d 496· 4th Cir.· 1987-06-02 ·cited 6×
  The district court abused its discretion by denying Ward's motion to amend its complaint, as the reasons given (change in theory and one prior amendment) were insufficient without a showing of undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility.
• Trinity Carton Co., Inc. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
  816 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Trinity's Rule 60(b) motion because the appeal of the underlying judgment was untimely, and the motion itself lacked the requisite equities for relief.