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

• Ackerman v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  973 F.2d 1221· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that promissory notes with interest rates calculated by reference to a bank's prime rate are negotiable instruments, and that the Bank was a holder in due course. The court also affirmed the district court's Rule 54(b) certification of final judgment.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Bruno's Rest.
  976 F.2d 521· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant in a Title VII suit when it found the plaintiff's action lacked credible evidence and was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
• United States v. Breitkreutz
  977 F.2d 214· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike testimony for alleged grand jury abuse, nor in admitting the drug ledger and a co-conspirator's judgment and commitment order.
• United States v. Clay Dalton Johnson
  977 F.2d 1360· 10th Cir.· 1992-09-29 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the denial of a continuance for a suppression hearing was not an abuse of discretion without a showing of specific testimony and due diligence, and that chain of custody issues go to weight, not admissibility, absent evidence of tampering. The court also vacat
• United States v. Onofre R. Gallegos
  975 F.2d 710· 10th Cir.· 1992-09-15 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding expert testimony or in its handling of a juror's acquaintance with a witness. However, the court remanded for a redetermination of the loss calculation for sentencing purposes and for the district court to consider t
• United States v. Daly
  974 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of shoot-out evidence was not an abuse of discretion, but the defendant was improperly sentenced as a career offender. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims and jury exclusion issues were not sufficiently developed for appeal.
• Marlin E. "Bill" Jones v. Rich Thompson
  974 F.2d 86· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence or refusing jury instructions, and affirmed the judgment.
• qad. inc. v. ALN Assocs., Inc.
  974 F.2d 834· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving the preliminary injunction based on the plaintiff's misrepresentations, and that pendent appellate jurisdiction did not extend to reviewing the summary judgment ruling.
• United States v. Layne
  973 F.2d 1417· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress statements made during a routine border stop, nor in admitting evidence of prior convictions, and that the government's late filing did not warrant sanctions.
• Gen. Elec. Co. v. Lehnen
  974 F.2d 66· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the summary judgment based on excusable neglect.
• In re Calder v. Reta JOB
  973 F.2d 862· 10th Cir.· 1992-08-25 ·cited 2×
  Upon conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7, all property of the Chapter 13 estate, including after-acquired property, becomes part of the Chapter 7 estate; conversion is effective upon court order, not the filing of a motion; and denial of amendment to claim exemptions was prop
• In re Wood F. Jones and Mary Jones v. W.J. Servs., Inc.
  970 F.2d 36· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellants' motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), even applying the newly amended procedural rules.
• Henderson v. Lane
  979 F.2d 466· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clearly established right to more frequent showers or exercise, and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on those claims. The denial of preliminary injunctive relief was also affirmed.
• Gora v. Costa
  971 F.2d 1325· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that Amelia Gora had standing to bring a Section 1983 claim based on the alleged wrongful entry into her home, and that while questioning about Edmund Gora's current incarceration exceeded impeachment limits, it was admissible for other purposes and not reversible
• United States v. Peay
  972 F.2d 71· 4th Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's error in denying a party the opportunity to impeach a witness was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
• Engleson v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  972 F.2d 1038· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in treating the second complaint as a Rule 60(b) motion, and affirmed summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Ferrofluidics Corp. v. Advanced Vacuum Components, Inc.
  968 F.2d 1463· 1st Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying New Hampshire law, modifying the restrictive covenant's term, or denying the motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party.
• Rock Creek Ltd. P'ship v. State Water Res. Control Bd.
  972 F.2d 274· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying attorneys fees solely on the lack of a causal link to the merits decision, as the pendency of the § 1983 action itself may have served as a catalyst for the Board's non-enforcement agreement.
• Grove Fresh Distribs. v. NEW England Apple Prods. Co.
  969 F.2d 552· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of customer statements regarding price was not reversible error, and the testimony of a rebuttal witness was properly allowed, thus affirming the jury's verdict and denial of post-trial motions.
• Swofford v. Sheriff Charles F. Mandrell
  969 F.2d 547· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint, alleging a pretrial detainee was severely beaten and sexually assaulted in jail without intervention for eight hours, stated a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious harm, and thus should n
• United States v. Staples
  971 F.2d 608· 10th Cir.· 1992-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The panel is bound by precedent requiring only knowing possession of a firearm, not knowledge of its specific characteristics that make it a machine gun.
• Snelling v. Westhoff
  972 F.2d 199· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the civil rights claims based on prosecutorial and witness immunity, and that the remaining claims were conclusory or lacked factual support. The denial of sanctions was also affirmed.
• United States v. Branch
  970 F.2d 1368· 4th Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err by conducting an in camera hearing to assess the authenticity of tape recordings and that sufficient evidence was presented to the jury to support a finding of authenticity.
• Salley v. E.I. DuPONT de Nemours & Co.
  966 F.2d 1011· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plan administrator abused its discretion by terminating benefits without fully considering the treating physician's advice and medical records, and that the district court's application of the treating physician rule, while potentially erroneous, was harml
• City OF Holyoke GAS & Elec. Dep't v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  972 F.2d 358· D.C. Cir.· 1992-07-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the SEC did not err in approving the acquisition, as its findings were supported by substantial evidence and its procedural decisions, including deference to FERC and denial of a hearing, were not an abuse of discretion.
• Bissett v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  969 F.2d 727· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in bifurcating the trial, admitting or excluding evidence, instructing the jury on foreseeability, or denying motions for a new trial.
• Munson v. Milwaukee Bd. OF Sch. Directors
  969 F.2d 266· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees to the defendants because the plaintiff's federal and state law claims were frivolous and lacked a factual basis.
• In re Donald E. Jones and Eileen v. Jones
  966 F.2d 169· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the debtors' arguments regarding the timeliness of the discharge objection and the validity of the bankruptcy court's orders were meritless, affirming the denial of discharge for disobeying lawful court orders.
• United States v. Amajuoyi Iwunze Briggs
  969 F.2d 689· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial when a surveillance report was produced late, and that the sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice and leadership role were proper.
• United States v. Muhammad Khan
  969 F.2d 218· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The Sentencing Guidelines do not permit an automatic increase in offense level based on an estimated fraud loss when the fraudulent activity could not have resulted in any actual loss.
• Figgie Int'l v. Miller
  966 F.2d 1178· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to alter the judgment and amend its complaint.
• Mayhue v. ST. Francis Hosp. OF Wichita, Inc.
  969 F.2d 919· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial due to the jury's unauthorized use of dictionary definitions, as the definitions were potentially prejudicial and the presumption of prejudice was not overcome.
• Alicja Tokarska v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  978 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's past persecution was not sufficiently severe to warrant asylum on humanitarian grounds.
• Conn v. CSO Borjorquez
  967 F.2d 1418· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing Rule 11 sanctions on defense counsel, vacating the order.
• Whitaker v. City OF Houston
  963 F.2d 831· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-26 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff may seek leave to amend a dismissed complaint, but the right to amend as a matter of course terminates upon dismissal; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend due to undue delay.
• United States v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
  967 F.2d 1372· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying Louisiana-Pacific Corporation's (LP) petitions to reopen a consent order, and that LP's defenses against civil penalties were without merit.
• Miller v. Miller
  602 So. 2d 591· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-06-19 ·cited 2×
• Phillips Buick-Pontiac-Gmc, Inc. v. Dallon
  602 So. 2d 594· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-06-19 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions
  The trial court erred in granting a new trial because the evidence did not warrant a res ipsa loquitur jury instruction.
• Petersen v. Douglas Cnty. Bank & Tr. Co.
  967 F.2d 1186· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurer's claim of a confidentiality privilege was properly rejected, but the order to produce documents was too broad as it did not adequately consider the work product doctrine regarding document selection and compilation.
• United States v. Gaye Flood
  965 F.2d 505· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-16 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidence Admission
  The court affirmed the conviction for conspiracy and fraud but vacated the restitution order, remanding for resentencing to correct the restitution allocation.
• Conservation LAW Found. OF NEW England, Inc. v. Mosbacher
  966 F.2d 39· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-11 ·cited 2×
  A regulated group has a sufficient interest to intervene as of right in a suit seeking more extensive regulation by a federal agency, and their interest would not be adequately represented by the government.
• In re Bolar Pharm. Co. v. Myron C. Gackenbach
  966 F.2d 731· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide specific findings and a reasoned explanation for applying a risk-enhancement multiplier to attorneys' fees, requiring remand.
• Jaynell Begley v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.
  966 F.2d 196· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees under the EAJA by failing to properly consider market rates, cost of living adjustments, and special factors, and thus vacated the award and remanded for further proceedings.
• DeNIEVA v. Reyes
  966 F.2d 480· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) is not a 'person' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but its official, Reyes, can be sued in his individual capacity for violating a clearly established right to travel. The judgment against the CNMI was reversed, w
• United States v. Wallace
  964 F.2d 1214· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·cited 2×
  An attorney's negligent failure to subpoena witnesses, without more, does not rise to the level of recklessness or bad faith required to justify sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the court's inherent powers.
• Tyree v. Taylor
  965 F.2d 773· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting credit for pretrial custody time against a sentence, even if credit was already given for another concurrent sentence.
• Colquest Energy, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  965 F.2d 116· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the employer raised material issues of fact regarding threats made by alleged union agents, requiring an evidentiary hearing to determine if the election was fair.
• TAX Analysts v. United States Dep't of Just.
  965 F.2d 1092· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fees to Tax Analysts, despite prevailing on the merits of its FOIA claim.
• Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds
  965 F.2d 916· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-29 ·cited 2×
  A district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice as a sanction for a party's willful violation of a discovery order, even after the party filed for bankruptcy.
• Minder v. Rigatti
  964 F.2d 1369· 3d Cir.· 1992-05-29 ·cited 2×
  A district court's dismissal of a complaint for repeated and deliberate defiance of court orders is an appropriate sanction, and appellate courts must give deference to the district court's exercise of discretion.