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

• Fed. Land Bank OF ST. Louis v. Wilson
  719 F.2d 1367· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the FmHA could reallocate proceeds from a chattel sale due to a mistake, absent prejudice to third parties or prior debtor direction. It also held that the Farm Credit Act preempts state usury laws for Federal Land Banks and that divorce property division is s
• LOS Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. The City OF Oakland
  717 F.2d 470· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-29 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Sanctions
  A federal court lacks authority under Section 16 of the Clayton Act to enjoin an ongoing state court eminent domain action, absent a pattern of baseless, repetitive claims or grave abuse of state courts.
• United States v. Crosby
  714 F.2d 185· 1st Cir.· 1983-08-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as the plea was voluntary and the defendant understood the charges.
• Bullock v. Suomela
  710 F.2d 102· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that requiring an inmate to pay a partial filing fee that would leave him with only 76 cents, considering his modest prison wages, constituted an abuse of discretion.
• United States Freight Co. v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  716 F.2d 954· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that striking a defendant's answer and entering a default judgment was not an abuse of discretion for repeated discovery violations.
• Nebenzahl v. Credit Suisse
  705 F.2d 1139· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The district court abused its discretion by granting dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds without explicitly weighing the relevant private and public interest factors.
• Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Berman
  429 So. 2d 79· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-04-06 ·cited 6×
  Florida Power & Light Company appealed from a trial court order denying its petition to condemn a perpetual easement for a 69 KV electric transmission line along Old Sherman Road in Okeechobee County. The court held that the utility abused its discretion by selecting a route that
• Adams v. J.W. Jones Constr. Co.
  703 F.2d 483· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion because the plaintiff willfully failed to comply with discovery requests and court orders.
• KEY v. State
  430 So. 2d 909· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-02-08 ·cited 6×
  Henry Lee Key appeals his conviction for sexual battery and robbery, challenging the admissibility of the victim's hypnotically refreshed testimony. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction and rejects a blanket exclusion rule for hypnotically enhanced te
• Brown v. A.J. Gerrard Mfg. Co.
  695 F.2d 1290· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 6×
• Armando v. Mauricio Rizikow
  424 So. 2d 962· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-01-11 ·cited 6×
• Nooria Madany v. Smith
  696 F.2d 1008· D.C. Cir.· 1983-01-04 ·cited 6×
  The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has primary authority to review an alien's qualifications for a third preference visa classification, even after the Department of Labor (DOL) issues a labor certification.
• United States Aluminum Corp. v. Kawneer Co., Inc.
  694 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion and that the transfer of a declaratory judgment action to another district was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• United States v. Araiza
  693 F.2d 382· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as the plea was voluntary and the denial was within the court's discretion.
• P. Mastrippolito & Sons, Inc. v. Joseph
  692 F.2d 1384· 3d Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fees to the prevailing defendant, but did err in denying costs to the prevailing defendant.
• Urban v. Urban
  424 So. 2d 22· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-09 ·cited 6×
  In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed awards of lump sum alimony, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney's fees to a Czechoslovak wife who abandoned her career and assets to marry and relocate to the United States. The court cla
• Explosives Supply Co., Inc. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp.
  691 F.2d 486· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a district court is not required to state explicit reasons for certifying a counterclaim under Rule 54(b) if the opinion demonstrates separability of claims.
• United States v. Myers
  692 F.2d 861· 2d Cir.· 1982-10-29 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.
• Est. OF Maurice (Moe) Horowitz v. City OF Miami Beach
  420 So. 2d 936· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-10-26 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Expert Testimony
  In a condemnation case, the appellate court reversed the trial court's exclusion of the property owners' expert real estate appraiser's testimony. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in disqualifying the expert despite his substantial qualifications and prep
• United States v. Freedman
  688 F.2d 1364· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-12 ·cited 6×
  The trial court abused its discretion by ordering the government to bear the cost of copying discovery documents for the defendants.
• Bittner v. Borne Chem. Co., Inc.
  691 F.2d 134· 3d Cir.· 1982-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in estimating contingent and unliquidated claims at zero value based on the ultimate merits of the underlying state court action, and its factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Niemiec
  689 F.2d 688· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the September 9th order reducing the defendant's incarceration did not affect the previously imposed fine and costs, and the subsequent amendment to clarify this intent was permissible.
• Meza v. Wash. State Dep't OF Soc. & Health Servs.
  683 F.2d 314· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, based on excusable neglect, was insufficient, and therefore both the state's and the plaintiff's notices of appeal were untimely.
• Barbon-Zurita v. State
  415 So. 2d 824· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-06-22 ·cited 6×
  Rolando Barbon-Zurita was convicted of second-degree murder and firearm offenses after a joint trial with a co-defendant. He appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to sever tried during trial, but the court affirmed because he had earlier stipulated to a joint trial despi
• Rovegno v. Geppert Bros., Inc.
  677 F.2d 327· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the decedent's blood alcohol level because it was not accompanied by other evidence demonstrating unfitness to drive.
• Frank and Wanita Melluzzo v. Watt
  674 F.2d 819· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board's determination that the Melluzzos did not locate their mining claims prior to the statutory cutoff date was supported by substantial evidence.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. The United States
  676 F.2d 622· Ct. Cl.· 1982-04-07 ·cited 6×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, suggests that while the contracting officer's actions may have been negligent, the extent of his duty to protect the surety against loss has not been clearly defined in precedent.
• United States v. Cole
  670 F.2d 35· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to allow testimony regarding alleged intimidation of witnesses, as it was not relevant to the charges and would have introduced collateral issues.
• Gifford v. Tiernan
  670 F.2d 882· 9th Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 6×
  Claims dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) do not require certification for expedited en banc review under 2 U.S.C. § 437h, and the district court correctly dismissed the appellant's claim as frivolous.
• United States v. DeWALD
  669 F.2d 590· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the Rule 35 motion filed within 120 days of resentencing, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence.
• Gomez v. State
  409 So. 2d 1096· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-01-26 ·cited 6×
  Affirmed conviction but reversed split sentence as invalid under Villery; remanded for resentencing with option to decline correction.
• Purex Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co. & Clorox Co.
  664 F.2d 1105· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that Purex failed to prove antitrust injury and did not abuse its discretion in denying Purex's motion to reopen the record.
• United States v. Pillsbury Credit Union
  661 F.2d 1195· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-27 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the district court did not err in enforcing IRS summonses, as the appellants failed to demonstrate that the summonses were issued solely to aid a criminal investigation.
• People OF the State OF Ill. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  668 F.2d 923· 7th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 6×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's decision to permit abandonment of a railroad line was not erroneous as a matter of law, as the merger conditions did not legally prohibit abandonment and the ICC's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence.
• Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  659 F.2d 127· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employer failed to present substantial and material factual disputes requiring an evidentiary hearing to set aside the union election, and thus the union's certification was valid.
• United States v. Abdullah Shabazz
  657 F.2d 189· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 6×
  Claims previously decided on direct appeal are not relitigable in a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• Bus. Ass'n OF Univ. City v. Landrieu
  660 F.2d 867· 3d Cir.· 1981-08-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the agency's decision could not be set aside because it was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or a clear error of judgment.
• United States v. Boothman
  654 F.2d 700· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence substantially supported the jury's verdict, the trial court did not err in excluding certain exhibits or admitting a stipulation, and the appellants were not denied effective assistance of counsel.
• Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  650 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-25 ·cited 6×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court affirmed the ICC's order allowing abandonment, finding it supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.
• Skinner v. W. T. Grant Co.
  642 F.2d 981· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-17 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the purchase agreement for accounts receivable subjected the assignee (Federal Financial) to the assignor's (Grant's) potential liabilities for customer counterclaims, as specified in the agreement, despite the bankruptcy court's sale order.
• Golden v. Alton Ray Golden
  395 So. 2d 1255· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-03-27 ·cited 6×
  The court should affirm the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony, finding no abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Glaze
  643 F.2d 549· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-17 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, admitting testimony about an inconclusive field test, or admitting testimony regarding a laboratory test despite a challenge to the chain of custody.
• Fla. Wildlife Fed'n v. Goldschmidt
  506 F. Supp. 350· S.D. Fla.· 1981-01-06 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Agency Discretion
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits or suffering irreparable injury.
• Eldwyn Lewis v. ST. Louis Univ.
  635 F.2d 700· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the award of costs was not an abuse of discretion, as the appellant failed to oppose the motion below and the award was not plain error.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Equity Serv. Corp.
  632 F.2d 1092· 3d Cir.· 1980-10-20 ·cited 6×
  A federal receiver's late filing of required documents under 28 U.S.C. § 754 does not divest jurisdiction if the rights of others are not prejudiced by the delay.
• Pattillo v. Schlesinger
  625 F.2d 262· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification and correctly dismissed the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and because mandamus was inappropriate.
• Randolph-Sheppard Vendors OF Am., Inc. v. Harris
  628 F.2d 1364· D.C. Cir.· 1980-07-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the agency's regulations implementing the Randolph-Sheppard Act Amendments were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and that detailed findings of fact were unnecessary for a summary judgment decision.
• Vaux v. Vaux
  385 So. 2d 179· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-07-08 ·cited 6×
• Smith v. Josten's Am. Yearbook Co.
  624 F.2d 125· 10th Cir.· 1980-06-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fees to the prevailing defendant because the plaintiff's suit was not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
• Harts v. Harts
  383 So. 2d 952· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-05-20 ·cited 6×
  Florida appellate court affirmed a divorce judgment awarding the wife a 1978 Fiat automobile with husband-paid installments and a $10,000 lump sum alimony with a lien on the marital home, finding substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's exercise of discretion.