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

• Sanders v. Clemco Indus. & Ingersoll-Rand Co.
  862 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appeal of the summary judgment was untimely because the motion for reconsideration did not toll the appeal period, but the appeal of the denial of that motion was timely. The court affirmed the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
• Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. OF Educ.
  844 F.2d 304· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Board of Education could assert its pretermination defense for the first time on remand, and that the pretermination procedures provided to Loudermill satisfied due process requirements. The court also affirmed the award of attorneys' fees to Loudermill as
• Leroy v. City OF Houston
  831 F.2d 576· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that attorneys' fees awarded to plaintiffs under the Voting Rights Act were excessive and partially improper, reversing and remanding the district court's decision.
• Stratton v. Bowen
  827 F.2d 1447· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the government's position was not substantially justified, and the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney's fees under the EAJA.
• United States v. Rinchack
  820 F.2d 1557· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's requests for a government-funded psychiatric expert and for the attendance of witnesses at government expense, as the requests were untimely or the testimony would have been cumulative.
• Roland v. Salem Contract Carriers, Inc.
  811 F.2d 1175· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint due to their willful, deliberate, and bad-faith failure to comply with discovery orders and court rules.
• United States v. Scelzo
  810 F.2d 2· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that admitting evidence of prior fraudulent credit card activity was proper, and refusing a mistrial and a specific cautionary instruction for co-conspirator testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Joe Dean Swift (86-1079)
  809 F.2d 320· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper, severance was not required due to lack of demonstrated prejudice, and the admission of evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• Hunt v. Bankers Tr. Co.
  799 F.2d 1060· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, denied the request for a stay, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, and directed the transfer of bankruptcy cases to the Northern District of Texas.
• League OF Women Voters OF Cal. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  798 F.2d 1255· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the government's position was substantially justified, precluding an award of attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
• McNEIL v. Econ. Lab., Inc.
  800 F.2d 111· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-27 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of age discrimination and upholding the denial of liquidated damages and front pay.
• van Sickle v. Judges William J. Holloway
  791 F.2d 1431· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the case as frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), and alternatively, that the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the state court decisions.
• United States v. De Rosa
  783 F.2d 1401· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 36×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment and the convictions, finding no prosecutorial misconduct warranting dismissal, that the defendant had a duty to disclose information under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, that the false statements were material, and that the
• United States v. Patricia "Patty" Cree
  778 F.2d 474· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay statements made by a child victim under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(24) and that the defendant waived her Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by failing to call the child witness.
• United States v. Kimmel
  777 F.2d 290· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-27 ·cited 36×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a civil release, nor in its jury instructions regarding intent, good faith, consciousness of guilt, or deadlocked juries.
• Nestor Rodrigo Rios-Berrios v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  776 F.2d 859· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 36×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the immigration judge abused discretion by granting insufficient continuances, effectively denying the petitioner his statutory right to counsel of choice, and that this denial was prejudicial.
• United States v. Associated Convalescent Enters., Inc.
  766 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that an attorney who fails to disclose a potential conflict of interest, leading to trial delay and disqualification, can be sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for multiplying proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously.
• Pregeant v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  762 F.2d 1245· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while admitting evidence of cockpit conversations was error, it was harmless, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's award for pre-impact mental anguish and post-impact suffering.
• United States v. Roy Griffith (82-1485)
  756 F.2d 1244· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury did not warrant dismissal without prejudice, and the jury's use of a dictionary, while error, was not prejudicial given curative instructions and overwhelming evidence.
• Otis Clapp & SON, Inc. v. Filmore Vitamin Co.
  754 F.2d 738· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motions to supplement the complaint and compel discovery, nor in its award of damages and attorney's fees.
• Am. CAN Co. v. Ishwar Mansukhani
  742 F.2d 314· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the temporary restraining order was improperly issued ex parte because there was no valid reason for proceeding without notice and it failed to comply with Rule 65(b)'s procedural requirements. The preliminary injunction was also deemed erroneously granted due
• Stock POT Rest., Inc. v. Stockpot, Inc.
  737 F.2d 1576· Fed. Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the TTAB's decision, holding that the appellee's use of the 'STOCKPOT' mark was prior to the appellant's use, and that the appellee's corporate revival and lease arrangements did not invalidate its claim.
• In re Burley v. Burley
  738 F.2d 981· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-03 ·cited 36×
  The Ninth Circuit's Order Establishing Appellate Review Procedures in Bankruptcy Cases is unconstitutional because it grants Bankruptcy Appellate Panels (BAPs) jurisdiction over cases not appealed to the circuit court and over interlocutory orders, which lack sufficient Article I
• Rutherford v. Pitchess
  713 F.2d 1416· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-23 ·cited 36×
  The concurring judge believes the majority opinion's section on defendants' good faith efforts should be deleted. He argues it may discourage officials from rectifying issues and could confuse legal practitioners.
• In re Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n
  709 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court exceeded its authority by ordering extensive discovery and a deposition as conditions for enforcing an EEOC subpoena, as the company failed to make a substantial showing of abuse.
• Batoon v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  707 F.2d 399· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the denial of suspension of deportation but reversed and remanded the denial of the motion to reopen.
• Nagel v. Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  707 F.2d 1384· Fed. Cir.· 1983-05-27 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) did not commit reversible error in affirming the petitioner's removal, as the board considered relevant factors and its decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence.
• United States v. Davila
  698 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 36×
  The dissent argues that an accused cannot be guilty of misprision of a felony when the conduct concealed is the commission of the felony itself, due to Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
• Saavedra v. Donovan
  700 F.2d 496· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-04 ·cited 36×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and was supported by substantial evidence, affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Quality Prefabrication, Inc. v. Daniel J. Keating Co. & Daniel J. Keating Co. as Agent in fact for Keating Saudi Arabia
  675 F.2d 77· 3d Cir.· 1982-03-30 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding no abuse of discretion, but established a new rule requiring district courts to articulate reasons for dismissal under Rule 37 sanctions for prospective application.
• Green v. State
  408 So. 2d 1086· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-01-20 ·cited 36×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever the charges, that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and that the jury exceeding the scope of a view did not prejudice the defendant.
• Ellis v. City OF Chicago
  667 F.2d 606· 7th Cir.· 1981-12-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that plaintiffs' failure to object to a jury instruction in the district court precludes appellate review, and that evidentiary rulings and the refusal to allow leading questions on direct examination did not constitute reversible error absent a showing of prejudic
• Tafero v. State
  406 So. 2d 89· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-11-24 ·cited 36×
  Jesse Tafero sought post-conviction relief from 1967 convictions for assault, rape, robbery, and related crimes based on newly discovered evidence: a third party's confession and victims' alleged admissions that they had committed perjury at trial. The appellate court denied reli
• In re Multi-Piece RIM Prods. Liab. Litig. Appeal of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. In re Multi-Piece RIM Prods. Liab. Litig. Appeal of William Haddon, Jr., M.D.
  653 F.2d 671· D.C. Cir.· 1981-05-29 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to compel discovery from non-party witnesses, nor in refusing to award expenses to the opposing party.
• United States v. Aviles
  623 F.2d 1192· 7th Cir.· 1980-06-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for a continuance under the Speedy Trial Act, nor in admitting evidence despite a challenge to the chain of custody.
• Caisson Corp. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
  622 F.2d 672· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 36×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Trial Court Rulings
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find an express oral contract between Caisson and Ingersoll-Rand, and that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the distributor agreement or restricting cross-examination of an expert witness.
• United States v. Rayco, Inc.
  616 F.2d 462· 10th Cir.· 1980-02-27 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding an exhibit not disclosed in violation of a pretrial order, and that the appeal was frivolous.
• United States v. Silva
  611 F.2d 78· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the denial of a continuance for new counsel, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Herrell
  588 F.2d 711· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-16 ·cited 36×
  A prior conviction, even if expunged or later challenged on non-constitutional grounds, can serve as the basis for a conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
• Diaco v. Diaco
  363 So. 2d 183· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-10-11 ·cited 36×
  A former wife appealed a trial court's decision establishing a Georgia divorce decree as a Florida judgment and denying her petition to increase child support. Although the husband's income increased substantially from $15,000 to over $80,000 annually, the appellate court affirme
• United States v. Frazier
  584 F.2d 790· 6th Cir.· 1978-10-03 ·cited 36×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the defendants were not denied a speedy trial, the trial judge did not exhibit bias, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Rev. Dianne Fennell v. Butler
  570 F.2d 263· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-06 ·cited 36×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the district court should consider alternative tests for preliminary injunctions, balancing hardships and serious questions going to the merits.
• United States v. Kopel
  552 F.2d 1265· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-19 ·cited 36×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  It was impermissible to show the jury that Kopel consulted his attorney before answering incriminating questions, as this violates due process principles established in Doyle v. Ohio.
• United States v. Carranco
  551 F.2d 1197· 10th Cir.· 1977-03-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the freight bill, despite notations made by different entities, was properly admitted into evidence as a business record because it was adopted and relied upon by the receiving carrier in the regular course of its business.
• Boyce v. The United States
  543 F.2d 1290· Ct. Cl.· 1976-10-20 ·cited 36×·via Abuse Of Administrative Discretion
  The court held that the Civil Service Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious because it relied on an improper rationale, even if other proper reasons might have existed.
• Morita v. S. Cal. Perma-Nente Med. Grp.
  541 F.2d 217· 9th Cir.· 1976-08-17 ·cited 36×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because he was not qualified for the promotion he sought, and the statistical and collateral evidence offered were insufficient to prove discrimination.
• Maudra Nevilles v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n & Union Elec. Co.
  511 F.2d 303· 8th Cir.· 1975-03-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the denial of the appellants' motion to intervene was not an abuse of discretion because the motion was not timely filed.
• Havenfield Corp. v. H & R Block, Inc.
  509 F.2d 1263· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to apply the New York Statute of Frauds, in directing a verdict on liability, or in refusing to allow supplemental answers to interrogatories.
• Slatton v. Martin K. EBY Constr. Co., Inc.
  506 F.2d 505· 8th Cir.· 1974-11-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a remittitur, and that the jury's determination of jurisdiction under the Jones Act was reasonable.
• Stuckey v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  488 F.2d 904· 9th Cir.· 1973-11-21 ·cited 36×
  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that decisions by the Social Security Administration to deny petitions to reopen prior proceedings are generally not judicially reviewable under section 405(g) of the Social Security Act.