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

• Valdez v. United States
  326 F.2d 598· 9th Cir.· 1963-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of appellant's negligence was not clearly erroneous, barring recovery due to contributory negligence, and that appellant waived any irregularity in the admission of an unsigned deposition.
• City OF Clearwater v. McCLURY
  157 So. 2d 545· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-11-08 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions
  The City of Clearwater appeals from a new trial order based on an erroneous jury instruction regarding a plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages from a sidewalk injury. The trial court found the use of 'could' instead of 'would' in the instruction was error that could have confused
• United Benefit Fire Ins. Co. of Omaha v. United States
  306 F.2d 325· 9th Cir.· 1962-07-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the remission of the forfeited bail bond.
• Mich. GAS & Elec. Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  290 F.2d 374· D.C. Cir.· 1961-04-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Federal Power Commission's order was not clearly erroneous and did not constitute an abuse of discretion, affirming the Commission's decision regarding natural gas delivery rates and facilities.
• Prentiss Douglass in Bankr. of the Commercial Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. Pugh
  287 F.2d 500· 6th Cir.· 1961-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to set aside a judgment under Rule 60(b) was not an abuse of discretion, as the evidence did not support the defendant's claim of being a secured creditor.
• Hygema House Movers, Inc. v. Nelle R. McDONALD and John W. McDonald
  125 So. 2d 902· Fla. 1st DCA· 1961-01-10 ·cited 6×
  This case involves a negligence action where the trial court granted new trials for both plaintiffs after separate jury verdicts. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting the new trials.
• State OF Utah & Vernon P. Bridge v. United States & the United States Civil Serv. Comm'n
  286 F.2d 30· 10th Cir.· 1961-01-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the discharging orders did not become moot despite the lack of a stay or suspension, and that the Civil Service Commission did not abuse its discretion in finding the employees guilty of Hatch Act violations.
• Rogers v. Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles ET Commerciales, S.A.
  278 F.2d 268· D.C. Cir.· 1960-04-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a broad reference of all issues, including trial and findings of fact and law, to a master is improper absent exceptional circumstances, as it constitutes an abdication of the judicial function.
• Fricke v. Gaines Constr. Co.
  105 So. 2d 374· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-09-23 ·cited 6×
  Fricke appealed a summary judgment dismissing his breach of contract action for construction damages. The trial court granted summary judgment based on an equity decree foreclosing a lien that was obtained during the pendency of the law action, treating it as a bar to the damages
• Agronofsky v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines
  248 F.2d 829· 3d Cir.· 1957-10-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice for want of prosecution.
• Franken v. United States
  248 F.2d 789· 4th Cir.· 1957-10-18 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a continuance, in refusing to require the government to turn over a witness statement, or in denying a motion for a directed verdict.
• Saldania v. The Atchison
  241 F.2d 321· 7th Cir.· 1957-02-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a demonstration of how timbers were handled, as the conditions were substantially similar to the incident.
• Demitrios Costas Melachrinos v. Brownell
  230 F.2d 42· D.C. Cir.· 1956-02-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of the alien's application for suspension of deportation was a proper exercise of administrative discretion and not subject to judicial review absent a clear showing of abuse.
• Yoho v. United States
  202 F.2d 241· 9th Cir.· 1953-01-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a continuance, that jury selection was proper, that evidence was sufficient, and that cross-examination and closing arguments were not prejudicial.
• Davenport v. United States
  197 F.2d 157· 5th Cir.· 1952-06-12 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the denial of a continuance, admission of evidence, and sufficiency of evidence were not grounds for reversal.
• Wilson v. Corning Glass Works
  195 F.2d 825· 9th Cir.· 1952-04-15 ·cited 6×
• Orrison v. C. Hoffberger Co.
  190 F.2d 787· 4th Cir.· 1951-07-26 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion (Appellate Review)
  The court held that the patent was invalid due to prior use and affirmed the lower court's decision.
• Stein v. Hemker. in re Embassy Co.
  157 F.2d 740· 8th Cir.· 1946-10-24 ·cited 6×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in limiting attorney fees, as the attorney failed to keep adequate records and the services provided did not demonstrably add significant value beyond what was compensated.
• In re Realty Assocs. Sec. Corp.
  156 F.2d 480· 2d Cir.· 1946-07-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that services rendered in connection with and beneficial to the administration of an estate under Chapter X are compensable, and that pre-petition services were not directly beneficial.
• In re Est. OF P. P. Cobb
  157 Fla. 590· Fla.· 1946-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a trial court's award of $15,000 in attorneys fees for successfully contesting and setting aside a bogus will in an estate valued at $80,000-$100,000. The court affirmed the fee award, holding that trial courts have discretion in determining rea
• Holslag v. Steinert
  143 F.2d 661· C.C.P.A.· 1944-04-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board of Interference Examiners did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to amend his preliminary statement and affirmed the award of priority to the appellee.
• Prentice v. Boteler
  141 F.2d 175· 9th Cir.· 1944-03-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a bankruptcy referee did not abuse discretion by confirming a private sale bid over a slightly higher subsequent bid, especially when the higher bid was not substantially greater.
• Gilbert v. Lachapelle
  127 F.2d 750· D.C. Cir.· 1942-05-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motions for postponement, and therefore, the dismissal of the case was proper.
• Hall v. State
  35 Fla. 534· Fla.· 1895-01-01 ·cited 6×
  T. A. Hall was convicted of aggravated assault with intent to murder in Walton County, Florida in 1894. This writ of error challenges the trial court's denial of a continuance motion and refusal to grant a new trial, but the Florida Supreme Court upholds the conviction as support
• United States v. Moore
  115 F.4th 1370· 11th Cir.· 2024-09-23 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury that 'lucri causa' (intent to benefit oneself or others) was a required element for theft under 18 U.S.C. § 661.
• United States v. Vertuies Wall
  116 F.4th 1285· 11th Cir.· 2024-09-06 ·cited 5×
  Three members of the Gangster Disciples—Vertuies Wall, Lawrence Grice, and Lewis Mobley—appealed their convictions for RICO conspiracy and related offenses, with Grice challenging the sufficiency of evidence and Wall and Mobley challenging various aspects of their convictions and
• United States v. Macrina
  109 F.4th 1341· 11th Cir.· 2024-07-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or its refusal to give a proposed jury instruction, affirming the defendant's convictions.
• SafePoint Ins. Co. v. Eligio Castellanos and Isabel Siles
  394 So. 3d 731· Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-06-26 ·cited 5×
  A trial court abuses its discretion by increasing an attorney's requested hourly rate without justification and by applying a contingency fee multiplier without competent substantial evidence that the relevant market required such a multiplier to obtain competent counsel or that
• Mills v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr.
  102 F.4th 1235· 11th Cir.· 2024-05-28 ·cited 5×
  The court denied the petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability, finding no reasonable jurist could conclude the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for relief from judgment.
• United States v. Carmelo Etienne
  102 F.4th 1139· 11th Cir.· 2024-05-22 ·cited 5×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a financial disclosure condition and a stay-away order as conditions of supervised release, finding no plain error and no abuse of discretion.
• Figueredo v. Yauri Del Carmen Rojas
  99 F.4th 1344· 11th Cir.· 2024-05-01 ·cited 5×
  A child's immigration status is a relevant factor, but not determinative, in assessing whether the child is settled in a new environment under the Hague Convention. The court reviews the district court's settlement determination for clear error.
• Paulina Monzon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  388 So. 3d 930· Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-01-31 ·cited 5×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and Monzón failed to demonstrate fundamental error warranting reversal.
• Mannella v. Mannella
  363 So. 3d 236· Fla. 6th DCA· 2023-03-10 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a father's petition to reduce child support. The court clarified that the correct standard for modifying an agreed-upon child support order is a substantial change in circumstances, not a "heavier burden," and certified con
• Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. A & C Med. Ctr., Inc.
  357 So. 3d 233· Fla. 3d DCA· 2023-02-15 ·cited 5×
  A trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a motion for leave to amend a pleading without demonstrating that the amendment would cause prejudice, constitute an abuse of the privilege to amend, or be futile. A time delay alone does not justify denial of an amendment absent
• Denny Dwain Branham v. Joannie D. Branham
  344 So. 3d 451· Fla. 5th DCA· 2022-12-02 ·cited 5×
  A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it denies a modification of alimony based on findings that the obligor voluntarily left employment and failed to prove a sufficient, material, involuntary, and permanent change in circumstances, even if the court erred in consideri
• A. L. v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts US, Inc.
  50 F.4th 1097· 11th Cir.· 2022-10-04 ·cited 5×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no clear error in its determination that A.L.'s requested modifications were neither necessary nor reasonable and would fundamentally alter Disney's business model.
• United States v. Edwar Rodriguez
  34 F.4th 961· 11th Cir.· 2022-05-12 ·cited 5×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's sentencing, holding that the defendant could be held accountable for the entire 200 kilograms of methamphetamine distributed by the conspiracy.
• Marcelus v. Aqua Fin., Inc.
  337 So. 3d 352· Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-04-20 ·cited 5×
  Defendants appealed a default judgment entered when their counsel failed to appear at a case management conference. The trial court denied their motion to set aside the default without making findings of willful and contumacious conduct as required by Florida law. The appellate c
• Rivera Chiropractic, Inc. v. Rosello
  336 So. 3d 409· Fla. 2d DCA· 2022-03-30 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs as sanctions. The court found that the sanctions were improperly granted because the motions for sanctions were either not properly served according to the statutory "safe harbor" period or were filed
• United States v. Clare Therese Grady
  18 F.4th 1275· 11th Cir.· 2021-11-22 ·cited 5×
  Protesters associated with the Plowshares movement illegally entered a naval submarine base in Georgia to engage in religious protest against nuclear weapons, causing property damage through spray-painting, pouring blood, and destroying signage. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed thei
• Alphonso Lucas v. State
  335 So. 3d 1203· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-11-03 ·cited 5×
  Alphonso Lucas appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, armed burglary with assault, and aggravated animal cruelty, raising five issues regarding trial court evidentiary rulings, sentencing procedures, and double jeopardy. The appellate court affirmed the convictions on
• Babun v. Stok KON + Braverman
  335 So. 3d 1236· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-10-27 ·cited 5×
  Sara Babun, as personal representative of her father's estate and co-trustee of his trust, appeals an award of attorney's fees to counsel representing her mother, Cristina, in an adversary proceeding against the trust. The court awarded interim fees of $530,266.75 plus expert fee
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nob Hill Family Chiropractic
  328 So. 3d 1· Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-09-29 ·cited 5×
  The trial court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Bain because it failed to make specific factual findings supporting its Daubert determination beyond conclusory statements, and the two factual findings it did make were either legally insufficient (that the expert did not ph
• Global Lab P'rs, LLC v. Patroni Enters., LLC
  327 So. 3d 453· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-09-22 ·cited 5×
  Appellants sought review of an order disqualifying their counsel from representing them in a commercial dispute with Appellees. The court affirmed the disqualification, finding competent, substantial evidence that counsel had a prior attorney-client relationship with Appellee Pat
• Jackman v. Cebrink-Swartz
  334 So. 3d 653· Fla. 2d DCA· 2021-05-28 ·cited 5×
  The trial court erred in denying the preliminary temporary injunction motion because intrusion upon seclusion does not require publication of recorded material, and the Jackmans established a reasonable expectation of privacy in their fenced backyard that was violated by the Swar
• United States v. Carlton Potts
  997 F.3d 1142· 11th Cir.· 2021-05-19 ·cited 5×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a First Step Act sentence reduction, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion and provided an adequate explanation for its decision.
• Cristin v. Everglades Corr. Inst. & Div. of Risk Mgmt.
  310 So. 3d 951· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-12-31 ·cited 5×
  This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the claimant appealed the denial of his claim. The appellate court reversed the decision, finding that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred by refusing to act as a "gatekeeper" and assess the admissibility of expert m
• Karkhoff v. Robilotta
  309 So. 3d 229· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-12-09 ·cited 5×
  The trial court erred by failing to clarify an internal inconsistency in the final judgment regarding the parties' vehicles, as the equitable distribution section stated the parties waived all rights in each other's vehicles while the parenting plan granted limited use rights for
• Bridge Fin., Inc. v. J. Fischer & Assocs., Inc.
  310 So. 3d 45· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-12-09 ·cited 5×
  JFA sued former employees Adam Palas, Alex Palas, and Sergio Nativi for misappropriating JFA's client list and trade secrets after they copied the company's entire server, formed a competing business (Bridge Financial), and solicited JFA's clients. A jury found the defendants lia
• IOU Cent. Inc. v. Pezzano Contracting & Dev., LLC
  311 So. 3d 295· Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-11-13 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the borrowers, finding they were the prevailing parties. However, it reversed the trial court's amended final judgment, ruling it was improperly entered under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) and t