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

• Stevens v. ITT Sys., Inc.
  868 F.2d 1040· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for relief from judgment because the appellant's counsel failed to exercise the requisite due diligence.
• Hays v. Postmaster General OF the United States
  868 F.2d 328· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-17 ·cited 2×
  The district court erred by dismissing the case without considering whether to transfer it to the Federal Circuit, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1631, when it lacked jurisdiction over discrimination claims not raised before the MSPB.
• Campbell v. Dr. J.R. Gregory and Dr. James E. Keever
  867 F.2d 1146· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing exhibit markers or denying a motion for a new trial based on allegedly perjured testimony.
• Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Ribo, Inc.
  868 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1989-02-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely, as the intervenors knew of the suit for over a year and their interests were adequately represented by existing parties.
• Binder v. Nazarine Binder
  538 So. 2d 925· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-02-07 ·cited 2×
  James Binder appeals a divorce decree that dissolved his 26-year marriage and distributed marital property between him and his spouse. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's equitable distribution despite the absence of expert testimony establishing the precise current va
• Child v. Spillane
  866 F.2d 691· 4th Cir.· 1989-01-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the child was not a prevailing party under the Rehabilitation Act because the lawsuit did not cause or expedite the relief obtained, thus vacating the award of attorney's fees.
• Mishael Maduakolam v. Columbia Univ.
  866 F.2d 53· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to reopen his case was untimely under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), but that attorney's fees under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 were not warranted given the circumstances.
• Callahan v. Schoppe
  864 F.2d 44· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions under Rule 11 for suing the wrong party without a reasonable investigation.
• Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley and David Charles Niblett v. McLAUGHLIN
  863 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Department of Labor abused its discretion by failing to consider the job duties listed on an employer's application for alien employment certification when determining if U.S. workers were qualified.
• United States v. McNEAL
  865 F.2d 1173· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to sever or the motion to query jurors without a hearing, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• Wilson v. State
  537 So. 2d 176· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-01-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony regarding the cab driver's lack of a concealed firearm permit, as it was irrelevant to the robbery charge.
• Basil Stewart v. DOW Chem. Co.
  865 F.2d 103· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the product liability claims on the grounds of forum non conveniens, as an adequate alternative forum existed and the balance of private and public interests favored dismissal.
• McLAUGHLIN v. Hogar SAN Jose, Inc.
  865 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying liquidated damages under the FLSA, and that the employer's appeal regarding damages was also without merit.
• Tomlin v. McDANIEL
  865 F.2d 209· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 2×
  A motion for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) cannot be used to revive a case that became final before changes in the applicable law occurred.
• Pierce Assocs., Inc. v. The Nemours Found.
  865 F.2d 530· 3d Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the owner could be a third-party beneficiary of the subcontract and that the exclusion of expert testimony was an abuse of discretion.
• DeRANGO v. United States
  864 F.2d 520· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate and reissue its order, as the appellants failed to provide a sufficient basis for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) beyond mere non-receipt of notice.
• Charles E. Pearce, M.D. v. United States Dep't of Just.
  867 F.2d 253· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-05 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Sanctions
  A nolo contendere plea to a felony involving controlled substances is a sufficient basis for the DEA Administrator to revoke a registrant's license, and the revocation penalty is subject to limited judicial review.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Chestman
  861 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an order granting or denying intervention is not immediately appealable as a collateral order and that a writ of mandamus is not warranted to vacate such an order.
• MacHaros v. Attorney General of the United States
  859 F.2d 1487· D.C. Cir.· 1988-10-25 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no clear error in its determination of the retroactive relief date for Title VII claims and upholding the dismissal of ADEA and Privacy Act claims.
• McLAUGHLIN v. Jung
  859 F.2d 1310· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Secretary's Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a consent order based on a calculation error, as such relief is extraordinary and carelessness is not a basis for it.
• United States v. Lombardo
  859 F.2d 1328· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-21 ·cited 2×·via Gross Abuse Of Discretion
  The court affirmed the district court's modification of sentences, finding no gross abuse of discretion in imposing consecutive sentences for Travel Act violations.
• The W. & S. Life Ins. Co. v. George and Regina Smith
  859 F.2d 407· 6th Cir.· 1988-10-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that HUD's denial of the Smiths' mortgage assignment request was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, as the Smiths failed to provide sufficient evidence that their default was caused by circumstances beyond their control.
• Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. The United States
  857 F.2d 1448· Fed. Cir.· 1988-09-29 ·cited 2×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in inferring bad faith from the government's inadequate interrogatory answers and imposing sanctions.
• United States v. Thayer
  857 F.2d 1358· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to reduce his sentence, despite his terminal illness.
• Bemis v. Kelley
  857 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appointment of counsel or in denying motions to compel discovery, and that the property claim lacked constitutional proportion.
• Green v. Foley
  856 F.2d 660· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) because newly discovered evidence of fraud and misrepresentation prevented the defendant from presenting a meritorious defense.
• Vernice Dubose v. Pierce
  857 F.2d 889· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of attorney's fees under the EAJA, holding that the government's position was not substantially justified and that a settlement provision did not preclude such an award.
• Goodro v. Bowen
  854 F.2d 313· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant was not the prevailing party, and thus not entitled to attorney's fees under the EAJA, because the district court's remand terminated the litigation before a final judgment on the merits.
• Rivera v. Virgin Islands Hous. Auth. & Comm'r of Hous.
  854 F.2d 24· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's award of $250,000 for pain and suffering was not so grossly excessive as to shock the judicial conscience, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial on that ground.
• United States v. Dania Dolores Mercedes-Mercedes
  851 F.2d 529· 1st Cir.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a special condition of probation requiring a defendant to obtain consent from both immigration authorities and her probation officer to reenter the U.S. constituted an abuse of discretion, as it improperly encroached on the Attorney General's exclusive power o
• Lewellen v. Raff
  851 F.2d 1108· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that its prior affirmance of a preliminary injunction against a state criminal trial was proper, even without a definitive finding on the likelihood of conviction, because a finding of retaliatory prosecution was sufficient for preliminary relief.
• Am. Inmate Paralegal Assoc. v. Cline
  859 F.2d 59· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appellants' pro se complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with court orders and as a sanction under Rule 11.
• United States v. Versaint
  849 F.2d 827· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit a police report as substantive evidence, and this error was not harmless.
• State OF Cal. v. Bennett
  849 F.2d 1227· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 2×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court held that the Secretary lacked good cause to disallow field trip expenditures and that the disallowance of multi-purpose conference expenses was proper, while remanding for further determination on lodging expenses.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Carl Weissman & Sons, Inc.
  849 F.2d 449· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-16 ·cited 2×
  The National Labor Relations Board did not abuse its discretion in scheduling a rerun election 67 days after an offensive remark, nor in refusing to hold a hearing on the company's objections.
• William A. Brown, M.D. v. Sierra Nev. Mem'l Miners Hosp.
  849 F.2d 1186· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in its findings of fact regarding the discrimination claim.
• Willner v. Univ. OF Kan.
  848 F.2d 1020· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the parol evidence instruction did not prejudice the plaintiff and that the denial of her untimely motions for recusal was not an abuse of discretion.
• Gov't OF the Virgin Islands v. Martinez
  847 F.2d 125· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a Spanish-speaking attorney, refusing to compel informant identity disclosure, allowing a transcript of a tape recording to be used by the jury, and that the admission of testimony regarding prior unch
• Truman Annex Co. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth.
  526 So. 2d 724· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-05-17 ·cited 2×
  Truman Annex Company challenges the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority's imposition of system development fees on property purchased from the U.S. Navy, arguing it should receive credit for the prior owner's exempt status and existing water use. The court affirms the agency's assess
• United States v. DeWATER
  846 F.2d 528· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that intoxilyzer test results are admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically the public records and reports exception, and do not violate the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• United States v. Jackson
  845 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Jury Instructions
  The court held that submitting forms to fraudulently reduce liability to the government constitutes a "claim" under 18 U.S.C. § 287, and prior false claims are admissible to prove intent.
• Bergman v. United States
  844 F.2d 353· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees under the EAJA, either through 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or common law principles, because they did not prevail on any civil rights claims against the United States and the government did not act in bad faith or willf
• Valladares v. United States
  841 F.2d 1089· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the claim based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel related to alibi and testimony, but remanded for findings on the interpreter and language barrier claims.
• Crum v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Tampa
  841 F.2d 376· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that because the appellants did not object to the district court's definition of the class, they cannot now claim the court abused its discretion in certifying a smaller class, and since all claims of the certified class are moot, the judgment is affirmed.
• Martin Luther King Econ. Dev. Corp. v. Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs
  528 So. 2d 385· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The Department of Community Affairs' scoring methodology for evaluating grant applications is consistent with the statutory requirement to consider the relative degree of distress of the target area, and the Department did not abuse its discretion in scoring MLK's application, in
• Sparks v. Shelter Life Ins. Co.
  838 F.2d 987· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-08 ·cited 2×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions
  The court held that under Arkansas law, a conditional insurance receipt provided coverage as of the application date because the conditions were met or waived by the agent's apparent authority, and the denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
• Druhill Constr., Inc. v. RSH Constructors, Inc.
  518 So. 2d 951· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-01-14 ·cited 2×
  The First District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed a trial court's order denying a motion to transfer venue. The court found that a venue provision in a prior contract, incorporated by reference into a subsequent contract, was binding on the parties and mandated venue in Pine
• Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co.
  835 F.2d 128· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and the extraordinary relief was not warranted under the circumstances.
• Telectronics Proprietary, Ltd. v. Medtronic, Inc.
  836 F.2d 1332· Fed. Cir.· 1988-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to disqualify counsel, subject to certain conditions, as no attorney-client relationship existed and no actual confidences were shown to be misused.
• Nemrod Jose Arauz v. Rivkind
  834 F.2d 979· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the immigration judge abused discretion by failing to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the asylum application, even though the alien was convicted of a serious crime.