Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review)

12,259 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,650 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Elledge v. State
  706 So. 2d 1340· Fla.· 1997-09-18 ·cited 41×
  William Elledge challenges his death sentence for the 1974 murder of Margaret Anne Strack following his fourth resentencing proceeding. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the death sentence, addressing 27 issues ranging from the validity of his guilty plea to the constitutional pr
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. AMY Travel Serv., Inc.
  875 F.2d 564· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 41×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the statutory grant of authority to issue permanent injunctions under Section 13(b) of the FTCA includes the power to order ancillary equitable relief, such as rescission and restitution. It also affirmed the magistrate's evidentiary rulings and the imposition
• United States v. Pendas-Martinez
  845 F.2d 938· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 41×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that admitting a government agent's report, which constituted a written summary of the government's case and contained inadmissible hearsay, into evidence and submitting it to the jury was an abuse of discretion that required reversal.
• United States v. Santiago
  837 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-25 ·cited 41×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions
  The court held that searches at the Atlanta airport were conducted at the functional equivalent of the border and thus required no reasonable suspicion, and that statements made by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy were admissible under the co-conspirator exceptio
• United States v. Lewis
  837 F.2d 415· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-26 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the prosecutor's peremptory challenge was not discriminatory, the exclusion of expert psychiatric testimony was proper, and the admission of prior bad acts evidence was permissible.
• Ralfe O.P. Silverman, Jr. v. Millner
  514 So. 2d 77· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-10-27 ·cited 41×
  Silverman appeals a judgment for breach of employment contract after the trial court denied his motion for continuance when he suffered a stroke immediately before trial. The court reversed, finding the trial judge abused her discretion in denying the continuance given the sudden
• Fed. Kemper Ins. Co. v. Rauscher
  807 F.2d 345· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-11 ·cited 41×
  The court held that injured parties have independent standing in a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurer, and their rights are not merely derivative of the insured's rights, especially when the insurer initiated the action.
• United States v. Lopez
  803 F.2d 969· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-04 ·cited 41×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of evidence was proper, prosecutorial comments were not reversible error, the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions, and statutory interpretations were correct.
• Samuel W. Brown, M.D. v. Nat'l Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs
  800 F.2d 168· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions under Rule 11 on the attorneys for filing groundless motions lacking reasonable inquiry into their factual basis.
• United States v. Burgess
  791 F.2d 676· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the defendant waived the issue of severance by failing to renew the motion at the close of evidence, and that the jury instructions and discovery sanctions were not an abuse of discretion.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Rogers
  790 F.2d 1450· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-03 ·cited 41×
  The dissent argues that the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous and that Rogers aided and abetted securities fraud.
• United States v. Garmany
  762 F.2d 929· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 41×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that requiring a defendant to pay travel fees for inmate witnesses did not violate the Sixth Amendment's compulsory process clause, absent a showing of indigency and prejudice. The court also held that the denial of a continuance and other evidentiary rulings did n
• Miss. Power & Light Co. & Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. United GAS Pipe Line Co.
  760 F.2d 618· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 41×
  The court held that a temporary injunction was not supported by a sufficient showing of irreparable injury, which is a necessary prerequisite for such relief.
• United States v. Clevenger
  733 F.2d 1356· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-30 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove criminal intent for conspiracy, mail fraud, and wire fraud, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance.
• Vanskike v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
  725 F.2d 1146· 8th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for a new trial or remittitur based on allegedly improper closing arguments and an excessive verdict, nor in limiting cross-examination regarding collateral source payments or excluding evidence o
• Sierra Club v. Peterson
  717 F.2d 1409· D.C. Cir.· 1983-09-13 ·cited 41×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court held that the Forest Service's decision to issue oil and gas leases without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on lands without a No Surface Occupancy Stipulation violated NEPA because the Department could not preclude surface-disturbing activities at the
• United States v. Carless Jones and Eugene Harvey
  707 F.2d 1169· 10th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance, that the warrantless search of the satchel was permissible due to abandonment, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct.
• Henson v. Columbus Bank & Tr. Co.
  651 F.2d 320· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-20 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Henson's state-law claim, even after it became time-barred in state court.
• In re Application of Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  653 F.2d 609· D.C. Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 41×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the broadcasters' post-trial application to copy video and audio tapes introduced into evidence, as the presumption of access to judicial records outweighed the speculative risks of prejudice and harm to thir
• United States v. Barrentine
  591 F.2d 1069· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-22 ·cited 41×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance for retained counsel and that the admission of certain evidence was proper.
• Buchanan v. United States Postal Serv.
  508 F.2d 259· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the Postal Service's consolidation of district offices was not a "change in the nature of postal services" requiring submission to the Postal Rate Commission, but affirmed the preliminary injunction for the Retail Analysis Program (RAP) due to factual disputes
• Williams v. State
  264 So. 2d 106· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-06-28 ·cited 41×
  A trial court abuses its discretion under Rule 1.220(g) by excluding defense witnesses for failure to disclose without first making careful inquiry into the reasons for non-disclosure, extent of prejudice to the other party, and feasibility of intermediate procedures to remedy th
• Floride Norelus v. Denny's, Inc.
  628 F.3d 1270· 11th Cir.· 2010-12-28 ·cited 40×
  Floride Norelus, an illegal immigrant from Haiti alleging sexual harassment and abuse by two Denny's restaurant managers, brought suit with representation by attorneys William and Karen Amlong. After Norelus's deposition revealed numerous inconsistencies and contradictions with h
• Woodly v. State
  937 So. 2d 193· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-08-23 ·cited 40×
  Tyrone Woodly appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the record conclusively refuted each of his allegations of involuntariness.
• Moore v. State
  800 So. 2d 747· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-12-14 ·cited 40×
  Norman Moore appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial following his conviction for sexual battery on a physically helpless person. The court reversed, holding that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by testing sufficiency of the evidence rather than the w
• Palumbo v. Moore
  777 So. 2d 1177· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-02-16 ·cited 40×
  The appellate court reversed a dismissal of a shareholder's cross-claim and third-party complaint. The court found that the shareholder had adequately stated claims for declaratory relief and fraud in the inducement regarding his personal guarantees for company loans.
• Dralus v. Dralus
  627 So. 2d 505· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-09-24 ·cited 40×
  In a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the division of marital assets but reversed and remanded the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the husband, finding the trial court failed to properly examine whether the wife's attorn
• United States v. Donley
  878 F.2d 735· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 40×
  The court held that hearsay statements by the victim were admissible to show her state of mind and plan, and that the Sentencing Reform Acts did not alter the mandatory life sentence for first-degree murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111.
• Johnston v. Harris Cnty. Flood Control Dist.
  869 F.2d 1565· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-17 ·cited 40×
  The court held that Johnston's attorneys were not subject to disqualification, the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion, and Johnston could pursue remedies under both Title VII and § 1983 for retaliation.
• United States v. Buckles
  843 F.2d 469· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-27 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
• Truax v. Bowen
  842 F.2d 995· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the plaintiff was not a "prevailing party" under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the causal link between his individual lawsuit and the legislative action was too tenuous to satisfy the catalyst test.
• Baker v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  839 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-14 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Equal Access to Justice Act's $75/hour limit can be adjusted for cost of living and limited attorney availability, and that these factors require uniform determination across Dallas federal courts. The court also found that the Appeals Council's failure to
• United States v. DeCOLOGERO
  821 F.2d 39· 1st Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 40×·via Gross Abuse Of Discretion
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) and in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing.
• H.H. Robertson v. United Steel Deck, Inc.
  820 F.2d 384· Fed. Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction for patent infringement, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and sufficient equitable grounds.
• Vance v. Am. Haw. Cruises, Inc.
  789 F.2d 790· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the damage award but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest, remanding for a determination of whether special circumstances justified the denial.
• Windsurfing Int'l, Inc. v. AMF
  782 F.2d 995· Fed. Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the patent claims were valid and infringed, but reversed the finding of patent misuse. It affirmed injunctions against some infringers but remanded for reconsideration of an injunction against another.
• B.G. Toombs v. Leone
  777 F.2d 465· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Section 12(1) claim was time-barred, other federal and state securities claims failed for lack of proof of material misstatements or omissions, common law claims were unsupported by evidence, and sanctions against counsel for violating local rules were not
• 999 v. C.I.T. Corp.
  776 F.2d 866· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-18 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a plaintiff who accepts a remittitur cannot appeal that order, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence inconsistent with a Rule 36 admission or in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury.
• Gaines v. Dougherty Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  775 F.2d 1565· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the law of the case doctrine did not preclude an award of attorneys' fees for services performed prior to 1971, and that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to award such fees.
• United States v. Davis
  772 F.2d 1339· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-05 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony regarding compulsive gambling as an insanity defense to charges of forgery and conversion, as the testimony was either unqualified, irrelevant, or lacked sufficient scientific accept
• Ginnie G. Davis v. Veslan Enters.
  765 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the district court's imposition of sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, finding that the attempted removal of the state court proceeding was filed in bad faith and for an improper purpose. The court also found the amount of sanctions, including lost interest, to be
• Spanish Action Comm. OF Chicago v. City OF Chicago
  766 F.2d 315· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-27 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff waived objections to jury instructions by failing to make timely and specific objections at trial and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find individual defendants did not act with the re
• Dabney v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  761 F.2d 494· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Montgomery Ward's requests for destructive testing, a jury transcript, and remittitur, and correctly interpreted Iowa law regarding comparative fault and prejudgment interest.
• United States v. Alexander
  761 F.2d 1294· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the search warrant was valid, probable cause existed for the arrest, and the denial of the motion to disclose informants' identities was not an abuse of discretion.
• In re Grand Jury Matters
  751 F.2d 13· 1st Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 40×
  A district court may quash grand jury subpoenas, even without a specific privilege claim, if their timing is found to be unreasonable or oppressive, particularly when it could jeopardize a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel in pending state proceedings.
• United States v. Bohdan Koziy
  728 F.2d 1314· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-27 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not err in revoking the appellant's citizenship, affirming the order of revocation.
• United States v. Reed
  724 F.2d 677· 8th Cir.· 1984-01-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that none of the asserted errors individually or cumulatively denied the defendant a fair trial.
• United States v. Herb Neal
  718 F.2d 1505· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove mail fraud, the admission of certain evidence was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of a change of venue was proper.
• McCARTHY v. Manson
  714 F.2d 234· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the state waived its right to raise the speedy trial exhaustion issue by failing to object to the magistrate's recommendation and consenting to the entry of judgment.
• Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Weinroth
  422 So. 2d 330· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-10-20 ·cited 40×
  Consolidated Aluminum Corporation appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to vacate a default judgment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the appellant waived its challenge to personal jurisdiction by failing to raise it in its first pleading, and that the trial