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

• Ellis v. City OF LA Mesa
  990 F.2d 1518· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that issues regarding the enforcement of an injunction, including property transfers and the joinder of necessary parties, must first be addressed by the district court.
• United States v. Gonzalez-Acosta
  989 F.2d 384· 10th Cir.· 1993-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the undercarriage inspection was not a search under the Fourth Amendment, the dog's alert provided probable cause, and a stipulation of weight for trial purposes is binding for sentencing.
• Hanover Potato Prods., Inc. v. Shalala
  989 F.2d 123· 3d Cir.· 1993-03-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's position was not substantially justified because it failed to make the administrative record available, causing unnecessary litigation and prejudice, thus entitling the prevailing party to attorney's fees under the EAJA.
• United States v. Judd Hirschberg and Richard D. Lowrance
  988 F.2d 1509· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a detective's testimony regarding his general distrust of defense attorneys was admissible for rehabilitation, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the mail fraud conviction but not the VIN alteration conviction for one defendant.
• Hinds v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  988 F.2d 1039· 10th Cir.· 1993-03-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying GM's motion for a directed verdict, refusing an enhancement jury instruction, and in its evidentiary rulings.
• In re M.P.W. Stone
  986 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-12 ·cited 2×
  District courts possess inherent power to require representatives with settlement authority at conferences, but routinely ordering the federal government to do so, without considering its unique structure and regulations, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Price
  988 F.2d 712· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was valid and his sentence was properly calculated, affirming the district court's decisions.
• United States v. Nichols
  986 F.2d 1199· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motions to withdraw their guilty pleas, and that the sentencing enhancements were appropriate.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Valley Bakery, Inc.
  986 F.2d 339· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The Board did not abuse its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding alleged employee coercion.
• Dillon v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
  986 F.2d 263· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert witness and evidence due to spoliation, allowing comments on the destroyed evidence, and instructing the jury on adverse inference.
• Yniques v. Cabral
  985 F.2d 1031· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) requires a district court to remand a case to state court if a plaintiff joins a non-diverse defendant after removal, and does not permit dismissal.
• Kale v. Stanley Obuchowski in Bankruptcy for Wayne J. Klein
  985 F.2d 360· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-09 ·cited 2×
  A party who prevails in a prior proceeding by asserting a proposition, even through settlement induced by deception, is judicially estopped from asserting the opposite in subsequent litigation.
• United States v. Wilson
  985 F.2d 348· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or sentencing, and affirmed the conviction.
• Marryshow v. Flynn
  986 F.2d 689· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, the "judgment finally obtained" must include pre-offer costs and attorney's fees when comparing it to the offer of judgment, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an amended attorn
• United States v. Chet Searing
  984 F.2d 960· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict both defendants on all charges and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Mahler
  984 F.2d 899· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a defendant cannot withdraw a guilty plea based on a misunderstanding of the sentencing guideline range when the plea agreement explicitly stated the court was not bound by recommendations and the defendant acknowledged this uncertainty. The court also held th
• Weaver v. Henderson
  984 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction against the Massachusetts State Police's 'no mustache' policy, as the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional challenge.
• Bhupendra C. Patel v. Richard C. Gayes, M.D.
  984 F.2d 214· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony from treating physicians not identified as experts, in refusing certain jury instructions, in limiting expert testimony due to discovery violations, or in excluding speculative damage evidence
• United States v. Augustin Mora Carrillo
  981 F.2d 772· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of extrinsic acts evidence was improper because the acts were not sufficiently similar to the charged offense to prove identity under the modus operandi exception of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
• Gerardo Mariani & Georgina Loureiro v. Doctors Assocs., Inc.
  983 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1993-01-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate for filing a frivolous motion but modified the order to impose sanctions on the responsible attorneys rather than their law firm.
• Daniels v. Pipefitters' Ass'n Local Union NO. 597
  983 F.2d 800· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b)(2) motion because the alleged new evidence was not credible and any error in refusing to draw an adverse inference was harmless.
• United States v. Blaze Joseph Mason
  982 F.2d 325· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance and that the sentencing based on estimated drug quantity was not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Carlin
  983 F.2d 106· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines.
• Aldret v. State
  610 So. 2d 1386· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-12-31 ·cited 2×
  Joseph Aldret was convicted of aggravated assault and simple assault after the trial court denied his racially motivated peremptory challenge to remove a black juror from the panel. On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the convicti
• Acrey v. Am. Sheep Indus. Ass'n
  981 F.2d 1569· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of age discrimination and constructive discharge, but insufficient evidence to support a finding of willfulness under the ADEA. The court affirmed the denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict on
• United States v. Nutri-Cology, Inc.
  982 F.2d 394· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.
• Franklin v. Thompson
  981 F.2d 1168· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state criminal conviction for disorderly conduct collaterally estopped the plaintiff from relitigating the legality of her arrest in a subsequent § 1983 civil rights action, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.
• Castillo v. Stainer
  983 F.2d 145· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to follow proper procedures for shackling the defendant, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the restraints were not visible to the jury and did not impede the defendant's ability to communicate with
• Manlove v. Tansy
  981 F.2d 473· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a defense strategy not presented to the trial court.
• Philips Med. Sys. Int'l v. Martin E. Bruetman, M.D.
  982 F.2d 211· 7th Cir.· 1992-12-15 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the default judgment and contempt order against the defendant due to his repeated disregard for court orders and failure to appear for depositions, but offered a conditional reprieve.
• CJC Holdings, Inc. v. Wright & Lato, Inc.
  979 F.2d 60· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-15 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to set aside the default judgment but vacated the award of attorneys' fees, remanding for further proceedings.
• Harrison v. Sears
  981 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting an x-ray, instructing the jury on its use, excluding certain expert testimony, or excluding evidence of subsequent remedial measures.
• R.I. Hosp. Tr. Nat'l Bank v. Howard Commc'ns Corp.
  980 F.2d 823· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that summary judgment was properly granted on the loan guaranty and that the finding of civil contempt was warranted due to appellants' actions impeding the receiver.
• Gillin v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  980 F.2d 819· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-07 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Discovery Rulings
  The court held that the IRS adequately responded to the FOIA request, either by producing documents, demonstrating they were unidentifiable, or proving they were exempt from disclosure.
• United States v. Karin D. Follin
  979 F.2d 369· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants of operating an illegal gambling business and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or sentencing.
• United States v. Fulford
  980 F.2d 1110· 7th Cir.· 1992-12-02 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the admission of Deputy Harmening's testimony regarding Richard Elmore's prior consistent statements was permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) and that any other evidentiary errors were harmless. The court also affirmed the $5,000 fine, findi
• Prows v. Fed. Bureau OF Prisons
  981 F.2d 466· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting injunctive relief for retaliatory transfer and correctly interpreted the statute regarding pre-release custody as not creating an enforceable entitlement to a specific placement.
• Thompson v. Sullivan
  980 F.2d 280· 4th Cir.· 1992-11-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's position was not substantially justified because the ALJ failed to apply controlling circuit law regarding the evaluation of subjective pain complaints. Therefore, the denial of EAJA fees was an abuse of discretion.
• Williams v. Groose
  979 F.2d 1335· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appointment of counsel and in dismissing the habeas petition as an abuse of the writ.
• Computer Care v. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc.
  982 F.2d 1063· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Computer Care's trade dress was inherently distinctive and likely to cause confusion, affirming the preliminary injunction on that claim, but reversed the injunction on trade secret claims, finding them not sufficiently secret.
• Gerritsen v. Shoji Shirai
  979 F.2d 1524· Fed. Cir.· 1992-11-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while appellants failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.662(b), the Board abused its discretion in selecting the sanction because it was based on clearly erroneous findings of fact.
• United States v. ONE Urban LOT
  978 F.2d 776· 1st Cir.· 1992-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the claimant's late-filed claim in a forfeiture proceeding.
• United States v. Manthei
  979 F.2d 124· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's dismissal of the indictment as an appropriate sanction for the government's egregious discovery and due process violations.
• United States v. Garth GUY
  978 F.2d 934· 6th Cir.· 1992-10-30 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Discovery Rulings
  The court held that the government is not equitably estopped from recovering an erroneous tax refund based on oral assurances from an IRS agent, and that the defendant was not denied discovery rights.
• United States v. Zillges
  978 F.2d 369· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a thorough inquiry into the defendant's request for new counsel, this error was harmless because the defendant failed to demonstrate that his attorney's performance was deficient or prejudici
• Thomas v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  978 F.2d 504· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the majority erred in reversing the preliminary injunction based on a de novo review of the facts and blurring the distinction between preliminary and permanent injunctions.
• United States v. Wales
  977 F.2d 1323· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-20 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that while the admission of the false driver's licenses was an error, it was harmless because the other evidence against the defendant was substantial.
• Snapper Power Equip., Inc. v. Dozer
  605 So. 2d 1012· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-10-14 ·cited 2×
• Martinez v. C.A. Turner
  977 F.2d 421· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-08 ·cited 2×
  A pretrial detainee's claim that he was denied due process by being placed in administrative segregation for refusing to work has an arguable basis in law and should not have been dismissed as frivolous prior to service of process.
• Thomas v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  976 F.2d 786· 1st Cir.· 1992-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in affirming a deportation order made during an in absentia hearing, as the alien failed to establish reasonable cause for his tardiness.