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

• Chapman v. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n
  788 F.2d 408· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissal of Chapman's case was an appropriate sanction for his failure to comply with discovery orders and that his claims of bias lacked merit.
• Cook v. Bilia Morrill
  783 F.2d 593· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-26 ·cited 6×
  The Sixth Amendment right to a trial in the district where the crime was committed does not apply to state prosecutions, and a change of venue in a state case does not violate due process unless it results in a conviction obtained without due process.
• United States v. Vadaain David Dixon
  784 F.2d 855· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, nor was there insufficient evidence of dangerous weapon use or prejudicial error in the judge's questioning of a witness.
• Mercy Cmty. Hosp. v. Heckler
  781 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Secretary's interpretation of Regulation 405.415(f) to recapture depreciation payments based on the excess of sale price over book value, without distinguishing between actual asset consumption and market-driven gains, was not reasonably related to the Med
• McINTOSH v. Flagler Title Co.
  483 So. 2d 50· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-01-22 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions
  The trial court granted a new trial on both liability and damages, reasoning that the jury's award of $26,000 (exceeding the $21,560 claimed) evidenced passion, prejudice, or sympathy. The appellate court reversed, holding that a new trial on all issues was improper when the erro
• Dial v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  780 F.2d 520· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-16 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of subsequent fires to show motive, intent, plan, or knowledge, and that the jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
• United States v. Kerr
  778 F.2d 690· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of extrinsic evidence, used to show motive, was unduly prejudicial and violated the defendant Kerr's right to a fair trial, warranting a new trial for him.
• Basil Zimzores v. Veterans Admin.
  778 F.2d 264· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a district court has the power to revise or vacate interlocutory summary judgments before a final judgment is entered, and the standard of review for such action is abuse of discretion, not the stringent requirements of Rule 60(b).
• Yachts Am., Inc. v. The United States
  779 F.2d 656· Fed. Cir.· 1985-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the Claims Court's denial of Yachts America's claims for compensation, finding no error in the prior decisions regarding ownership, business taking, leasehold taking, implied contract, inverse condemnation, or the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.
• United States v. Peters
  777 F.2d 1294· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statute in effect at the time did not authorize the United States to convey property obtained through criminal forfeiture by a warranty deed, as it would impose obligations beyond the interest acquired by the government. However, the court remanded for con
• United States v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc.
  776 F.2d 839· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court underestimated the need for continued grand jury secrecy and that the record was insufficient to review the petitioners' asserted compelling need for disclosure.
• Eartha Lorraine Bluitt v. Arco Chem. Co.
  777 F.2d 188· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-14 ·cited 6×
  A district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an employment discrimination case as a sanction for the plaintiff's and her counsel's willful and contumacious failure to comply with discovery orders.
• In re Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Braniff Airways, Inc.
  774 F.2d 1303· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an appeal for failure to timely file a brief.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoenas served upon Edward Kiefaber v. 94 Ltd.
  774 F.2d 969· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the government's appeal from an order quashing grand jury subpoenas, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in quashing the subpoenas as a sanction for the government's egregious misconduct in violating Rule 6(e).
• Watson v. H.A. Miears
  772 F.2d 433· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the buyer breached the contract by failing to pay the balance due, as the goods conformed to the contract and the buyer had no right to revoke acceptance.
• Vissarion Katapodis and Koula Katapodis v. Koppers Co., Inc.
  770 F.2d 655· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-14 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  A prime contractor can be held liable under Indiana's Construction Industry Safety Code for injuries to a subcontractor's employee, even without a direct employer-employee relationship, if the prime contractor fails to ensure compliance with the Code.
• Prow v. Medtronic, Inc.
  770 F.2d 117· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 6×·via Gross Abuse Of Discretion
  The court held that a post-employment restrictive covenant was enforceable because it protected a legitimate business interest and was reasonable in scope, and that the employer did not breach the employment agreement.
• E.H. Pullum v. Regency Contractors, Inc.
  473 So. 2d 824· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-08-09 ·cited 6×
  Pullum appeals from a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict awarding Regency Contractors $12,486.77 in damages for breach of a construction contract, after a jury had awarded only $5,000. The court reverses, holding that the trial court abused its discretion b
• In re Transcon. Energy Corp. v. Jackson
  764 F.2d 1296· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the compromise settlement, and that the appeal was frivolous warranting sanctions.
• United States v. Guzzino
  766 F.2d 302· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-26 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that a trial judge erred in denying media access to audio tapes based on concerns about potential inaccurate reporting or public misunderstanding due to the tapes' poor quality.
• United States v. Mitchell
  765 F.2d 130· 10th Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that the defendant received due process.
• In re Newman
  763 F.2d 407· Fed. Cir.· 1985-05-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus was not warranted because the district court's remand order did not constitute a clear abuse of discretion and did not deprive the petitioner of an Article III adjudication.
• Spaeth v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal.
  762 F.2d 865· 10th Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $2 million in punitive damages after a remittitur, considering the defendant's egregious conduct and substantial net worth.
• Stump v. Dep't of Transp.
  761 F.2d 680· Fed. Cir.· 1985-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the agency's removal of an air traffic controller for off-duty cocaine use was not an abuse of discretion, given the employee's sensitive position.
• In re Arb. between Maria Victoria Naviera, S.A. v. Cementos del Valle, S.A.
  759 F.2d 1027· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in compelling arbitration and denying dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, as the arbitration agreement was broad and the parties consented to the forum by agreeing to arbitrate.
• United States v. Occi Co.
  758 F.2d 1160· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-28 ·cited 6×
  The court's prior holding that a mortgagor can use the Department's failure to comply with national housing objectives as a defense to foreclosure is questionable.
• United States v. Arrington
  757 F.2d 1484· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 6×
  The district court had jurisdiction to consider a timely filed motion for a new trial on remand, and its denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• Martinez v. The Idaho First Nat'l Bank
  755 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by limiting attorney fees to the amount of statutory recovery and refusing to consider hours spent on appeal.
• Sardi's Rest. Corp. v. Sardie
  755 F.2d 717· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a realistic possibility of irreparable injury or a sharp balance of hardships in its favor.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Eng'rs Constructors, Inc.
  756 F.2d 464· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not abuse its discretion in ordering an election for a contracting bargaining unit when a substantial period of collective bargaining remained.
• Diamond v. The John Martin Co.
  753 F.2d 1465· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the post-judgment motion for attorneys' fees was timely filed and that the award of fees, though small, was not an abuse of discretion.
• ELY v. United States Postal Serv.
  753 F.2d 163· D.C. Cir.· 1985-02-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that indigency alone is not sufficient grounds to waive fees for information requests under the Freedom of Information Act; a public benefit must be demonstrated.
• Ellis v. Ellis
  461 So. 2d 190· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-12-12 ·cited 6×
  In a divorce case involving a 26-year marriage, the appellate court corrected mathematical errors in the trial court's asset division and modified the payment structure for the remaining balance owed to the wife, requiring lump-sum payment rather than rehabilitative alimony, and
• 107 Grp., Inc. v. Gulf Coast Paving & Grading, Inc.
  459 So. 2d 466· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-11-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that interviewing witnesses and contacting experts does not constitute good cause to avoid dismissal for failure to prosecute under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e).
• United States v. Drinkall
  749 F.2d 20· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by revoking probation without adequately finding that the defendant committed unlawful acts while on probation.
• United States v. Ward V. Nolder
  749 F.2d 1128· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Nolder's motion to vacate the judgment, as Nolder was a member of the Coleman class protected by an injunction.
• United States v. Garman
  748 F.2d 218· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-13 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion In Denying Continuance
  The court held that venue was proper in the District of Maryland and that the denial of a continuance to present cumulative evidence was not an abuse of discretion or a violation of the defendant's rights. The jury instructions regarding willfulness were also deemed proper.
• Granda v. Granda
  457 So. 2d 589· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-10-16 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Carvalho
  742 F.2d 146· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting ex-spouses' affidavits under hearsay exceptions, as the statements were not against penal interest and lacked trustworthiness, and the error was not harmless.
• Barrows v. Forest Labs., Inc.
  742 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed claims were speculative, sought a windfall, and would unduly prejudice the defendants.
• Young v. Dep't OF Commerce
  737 F.2d 1029· Fed. Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) abused its discretion by refusing to accept late-filed appeals from employees affected by a reduction in force, as their reasons for delay were reasonable and did not prejudice the agency.
• Corey v. Mast Rd. Grain & Bldg. Materials Co., Inc.
  738 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment of dismissal.
• United States v. Pascal DiJAMES
  731 F.2d 758· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-03 ·cited 6×
  A conviction for failure to file a required labor union trusteeship report must be prosecuted in the district where the report is to be filed (Washington D.C.), not where the trusteeship was imposed.
• Sherrod v. Sherrod
  448 So. 2d 1234· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-04-25 ·cited 6×
  In this custody appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision to award primary custody of a five-year-old child to his father following the parents' divorce. The court held that the trial court properly considered all relevant factors and did no
• Hart v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  730 F.2d 1206· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the appellant's petition for failure to comply with a discovery order and for failing to appear at hearings.
• Shyamala Rajender v. The Univ. OF Minn. & the Regents of the Univ. of Minn.
  730 F.2d 1110· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 6×
  Modification of a consent decree requires a clear showing of grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions, not merely a bad bargain or foreseeable difficulties.
• Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  727 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that evidence of an increased risk of future cancer is inadmissible when the plaintiff has not yet developed cancer, as the element of causation is lacking. The court also affirmed the denial of a new trial based on the jury's verdict having a reasonable basis in t
• Blevins v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
  728 F.2d 1576· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the $2 million verdict was not excessive and that jury instructions were proper, but modified the judgment to account for a pretrial settlement.
• United States v. Lauga
  726 F.2d 1032· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of grand jury abuse and entitlement to a new trial based on overturned prior convictions lacked merit.
• Magers v. Walker's CAY AIR Terminal, Inc.
  451 So. 2d 867· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a dismissal for lack of prosecution under Rule 1.420(e) applies to the entire action, not just the moving party. It was error not to dismiss the action against all defendants.