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

• Mich. Pub. Power Agency v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  963 F.2d 1574· D.C. Cir.· 1992-05-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold full evidentiary hearings on the Michigan Municipal Cooperative Group's allegations of anticompetitive conduct, as the allegations were deemed unfounded, premature
• 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.
• United States v. Syed Shaft Imran
  964 F.2d 1313· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in excluding expert testimony, in its jury charge regarding the defendant's right not to testify, or in denying the motion for a new trial.
• Bilski v. Scientific Atlanta
  964 F.2d 697· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the defendant was supported by sufficient evidence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
• Alsobrook v. State
  600 So. 2d 1173· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-05-20 ·cited 2×
  A party seeking to challenge an administrative agency's discretionary decision to exclude evidence for non-compliance with procedural rules must affirmatively demonstrate an abuse of discretion on appeal. The court will not second-guess the agency's reasonable exercise of discret
• United States v. Huei Mei Wang
  964 F.2d 811· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting videotaped depositions taken before the defendant was aware of the specific charges violated her Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination, warranting a new trial.
• United States v. Bourgeois
  964 F.2d 935· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-19 ·cited 2×
  To obtain discovery for a selective prosecution claim, a defendant must present specific facts establishing a colorable basis for both discriminatory application of the law and discriminatory intent, not mere allegations or a frivolous showing.
• Nelson v. City Colleges OF Chicago
  962 F.2d 754· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a client's failure to monitor litigation and demonstrate diligence prevents relief under Rule 60(b), even if former counsel was grossly negligent.
• Etter v. J. Pease Constr. Co.
  963 F.2d 1005· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prohibited transaction under ERISA does not automatically require a remedy if the plan suffered no loss and the transaction was otherwise prudent. The court also affirmed the denial of overtime pay based on the trial court's credibility findings.
• Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Mem'l Ctr.
  963 F.2d 1352· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a contingency enhancement to attorney fees is appropriate only in exceptional cases where there was a real risk of not prevailing at the outset of litigation and substantial difficulty in finding counsel without such an enhancement.
• In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc.
  963 F.2d 855· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's order, holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to protect the debtor's reorganization efforts, even without a full evidentiary hearing, and that the recusal issue was not preserved
• Sofyan Ali Saleh v. United States Dep't OF Just.
  962 F.2d 234· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and thus was not eligible for asylum or withholding of deportation.
• Dove v. Atl. Cap. Corp.
  963 F.2d 15· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a contempt citation, even without imposed sanctions, is sufficient to establish appellate jurisdiction, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a protective order.
• Ginett v. Computer Task Grp., Inc.
  962 F.2d 1085· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the severance pay claim for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b).
• First Republicbank Fort Worth v. Norglass, Inc.
  958 F.2d 117· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a two-year delay in filing a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, without a valid justification, is not a "reasonable time" and constitutes an abuse of discretion to deny.
• Drucker v. O'Brien's Moving & Storage Inc.
  963 F.2d 1171· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the Druckers under 49 U.S.C. § 11711(d) and granted fees for the appeal.
• Auto Club Ins. Ass'n v. Health & Welf. Plans, Inc.
  961 F.2d 588· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while ERISA preempts the Michigan statute at issue, this preemption does not automatically resolve the conflict between the coordination of benefits clauses, and the case must be remanded for further proceedings.
• Boogaerts v. The Bank OF Bradley
  961 F.2d 765· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the District Judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing plaintiff's RICO claims as a sanction for attorney's discovery abuse.
• Thomas v. Brennan
  961 F.2d 612· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Commission's regulation improperly delayed the application of D.C. parole guidelines to the D.C. portion of a mixed sentence, but affirmed the Commission's departure from federal parole guidelines as not arbitrary or capricious.
• Hogan v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  961 F.2d 1021· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's certification of a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) was not an abuse of discretion, and therefore the appeal was properly dismissed.
• United States v. Pugliese
  960 F.2d 913· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the defendant to serving his supervised release within the judicial district, as the necessary supervision structure is absent abroad.
• The United States v. Reul
  959 F.2d 1572· Fed. Cir.· 1992-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the statute of limitations did not bar the government's suit for breach of the surety bonds, but vacated and remanded the award of prejudgment interest against the surety, finding it improperly calculated from a date prior to demand on the surety.
• United States v. Winslow
  962 F.2d 845· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding an undercover informant, nor did it abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings or denying mistrial motions. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• In re Apex OIL Co. v. Palans
  960 F.2d 728· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while quality of service and results obtained can justify fee enhancement, the applicant must show they were superior to what is reasonably expected for the lodestar amount. The court also rejected the requirement to compare with specific non-bankruptcy servic
• United States v. Dowdy
  960 F.2d 78· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the attorney in contempt of court on three occasions, nor did it deny her due process.
• Barnhill v. Doiron
  958 F.2d 200· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the inmate's request for appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
• Hancock v. Dodson
  958 F.2d 1367· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting a guilty plea to a misdemeanor and allowing questioning about a prior insurance claim constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Torres
  959 F.2d 858· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-18 ·cited 2×
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. for Vernon Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Oaklawn Apts.
  959 F.2d 170· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding that the appellants waived their defenses of insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction based on an attorney's unauthorized appearance.
• Bullfrog Films, Inc. v. Wick
  959 F.2d 782· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in finding the government's position substantially justified, but did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award fees for post-judgment proceedings.
• Hoover v. Langston Equip. Assocs., Inc.
  958 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint as time-barred and for failure to plead fraud with particularity, and did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
• United States v. Naveed A. Siddiqi
  959 F.2d 1167· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, as the 'physicians away list' was likely to lead to an acquittal and was not merely cumulative.
• Ellison v. Shenango Inc. Pension Bd.
  956 F.2d 1268· 3d Cir.· 1992-02-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the denial of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in an ERISA action should be reversed, as such awards should ordinarily be granted as a matter of course unless special circumstances justify denial.
• United States v. Carbajal
  956 F.2d 924· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-14 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge holds that the government failed to demonstrate that the defendant's consent to search her home was voluntary, given the coercive circumstances.
• Turnage v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  953 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-11 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Discovery Rulings
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a discovery request for a circuit breaker inspection, but erred in its jury instructions regarding a defective shut-off mechanism, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial on that claim.
• Jostens, Inc. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  956 F.2d 175· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-05 ·cited 2×
  The Tax Court did not err in determining Jostens's income tax deficiencies for the years 1980-1982.
• Pulaski Cnty. Republican Comm. v. Pulaski Cnty. Bd. OF Election Comm'rs
  956 F.2d 172· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs under Rule 11 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 based on erroneous legal conclusions.
• Coal Res., Inc. v. Gulf & W. Indus., Inc.
  954 F.2d 1263· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while most of the expert testimony was admissible under the law of the case doctrine due to changed circumstances, the expert was not qualified to testify on the cost of a coal preparation plant, warranting a remittitur.
• Stanley Woodbridge (90-3574) v. Dahlberg
  954 F.2d 1231· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that appellants failed to preserve their objection to the jury instruction on supervisory liability by not clearly raising it with the trial court, and the instruction did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Bennett
  955 F.2d 23· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation because the defendant's dissipation of assets demonstrated a reckless disregard for his restitution obligation.
• United States v. Dockery
  955 F.2d 50· D.C. Cir.· 1992-01-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to sever the ex-felon count, and by allowing the government to use the prior conviction in cross-examining a defense witness, leading to undue prejudice against the defendant.
• Akin v. Off. of Thrift Supervision Dep't of Treas.
  950 F.2d 1180· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Office of Thrift Supervision director's cease and desist order requiring Akin to pay $19.5 million to restore a savings and loan's net worth deficiency was enforceable under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b).
• United States v. Moore
  954 F.2d 379· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to compel disclosure of a confidential informant, nor in its jury instructions or rulings on prosecutorial comments.
• Anderson v. McELROY
  953 F.2d 803· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-17 ·cited 2×
  The BIA abused its discretion by denying a stay of deportation without a reasoned opinion, and the district court erred in upholding that denial.
• Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Martin
  954 F.2d 353· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor violated Yellow Freight's due process rights by finding a violation of § 405(a) without providing adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard on that specific issue.
• Edmundson v. C.A. Turner
  954 F.2d 510· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review claims of double counting by the Parole Commission, even if it generally lacks jurisdiction to review substantive decisions.
• United States v. YEE Soon Shin and Yong Woo Jung
  953 F.2d 559· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions and sentences are affirmed, as the district court did not err in its procedural rulings or sentencing calculations.
• Larson v. Heritage Square Assocs.
  952 F.2d 1533· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Larson's Rule 60(b) motion because the parties, through their attorneys, reached a valid and binding settlement agreement at the pre-trial conference.
• Ervan Purnell v. Lord
  952 F.2d 679· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the revocation of an inmate's correspondence privilege was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and that no clearly established liberty interest existed for due process claims, thus affirming the lower court's decision.
• Mgic Indem. Corp. v. Moore
  952 F.2d 1120· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because there was no evidence of bad faith or violation of Rule 11.